Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

It is generally understood to be formerly functioning, no-longer-functioning DNA. Suggests former genetic potentials in all creatures that are no longer there. Why? Looks to me to be the reverse. Why do you say "extra?" It's understood to be former DNA, once-functioning DNA. Yes, apparently mutations continue to occur even to the pseudogenes. Their not being phenotypically represented means they're nonfunctioning, dead. 1) It's hard to see how completely useless mutations in nonfunctioning DNA that make no phenotypic difference offer any genetic variability whatever; and2) As a creationist I don't believe mutations have anything to do with normal variation, although I'm still open to the possibility of a slight contribution -- only I haven't seen it yet. I can't imagine where you get such an idea. What is your reasoning? Maybe we do. Nobody knows what the original length was. But it is interesting that all that dead DNA continues to be retained although it's useless. Edited by Faith, : they're to theirEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Obviously the dating of Egyptian civilization is wrong.And as mjf said, there's a TON of evidence of a worldwide flood in the worldwide myths about it. You don't get all those cultures agreeing on a tale like that without reality behind it. Oh please, jar, do stop bothering with us.

the non functioning DNA is non functioning because of a mutation. interupt the start or stop codon sequence, and you either get the wrong protein, or no protein at all. what will stop it from mutating into functionality again?let's define genetic variability, shall we?genetic variability-the difference in the DNA sequences between memebers of the same species?orthe potential for change in the DNA of an organism?either way, if it was decreasing, which you claim, we should see one of two things--
1)the difference between two members of the same species are decreasing
2)the amount of DNA present should shorten over time, by generation.as to the first: mutations will increase the difference, not decrease them, between to members of the same species. that's how we end up with speciation.as to the second: if we are to limit genetic variability, an effective way would be to decrease the DNA. why? Humans have a mutation every x amount of base pairs. Every organism we've studied has a different x value. So, to lessen the chance of mutation increasing the difference, we would need to shorten the DNA. That decreases the amount that can be mutated. Eventually, if we are to follow this path to its logical conclusion, there will be no DNA left. Why? because with zero DNA, there is zero chance that a mutation can occur to increase the difference.do we see either of these? No.as to the extra DNA--as far as we can tell, if we were to get rid of that DNA, we would still be functioning humans. Unless the extra, junk DNA does have a purpose--at which point it isn't junk.junk DNA is actually leftovers, showing an increase of DNA length.as to how mutations in junk DNA offers genetic variability--if youaccept either definition I gave--if I have a mutation in the junk gene that my brother doesn't, that increases the difference between the two of us. Now then, if variability is determined by length, then that junk DNA provides a great deal of DNA base pairs that can be changed. More so than if it weren't there.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

true. the reality behind it is localized flooding. The sumerians lived in a flood prone region. The indus river region, the two important chinese ones, the amazon, the egyptians. All on rivers, which flood.Noah's ark is from the flooding of the black sea--the entire world to them.how many myth's are exageratted? Pretty near all of them.
And, technically speaking--legends have a touch of truth to them. not myths.you realize that that is the same argument used to prove God, right? Because every place in the world has/d similar morals?
just as bad an argument.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

=Thus confirming what creationists know, that mutations do almost nothing but destroy. Um, the Law of Probability? Maybe one or two will stagger again to life from time to time, like Frankenstein's monster, probably only to contribute another unpleasant genetic disease to the mix. I think it's the number of alleles available in a population, or perhaps as well in the individual genome itself back in the beginning. Well, I think this is happening. I don't know how we'd "see" it since we can't compare anything with the situation 4500 years ago let alone 6000. There's still a lot of variability, you understand, so that variation continues, so I don't know how you would recognize this trend. But yes, the cheetah is the extreme expression of this very loss of difference. I would suspect that the siblings of a two-parent family showed less obvious similarities a few thousand years ago than they do now thanks to greater genetic options, and so would their cousins and so on out.But more important, with such a decrease I would expect to see what we do see, a general increase in genetic diseases, and vulnerability to extinction in many species. Yes, that is what the ToE says, but in actual fact it is not what happens. Speciation is always gained at the expense of genetic variability, through the loss of some alleles as others are brought to phenotypic expression, and I haven't yet seen any evidence that mutation alters this fact one iota.{edit: Correction: When we do see differences, we also see reduction in genetic variability. That's the point. It's hard to get this expressed properly and it's sometimes hard to follow what you are saying.} Well, as a matter of fact that IS what we see. We have what, some 1-to-2% functioning DNA left, all the rest being dead DNA? This is the same thing as saying that DNA is drastically reduced from its former condition. Drastically. Can you show any examples of junk DNA being brought back to useful functioning life by the way? Well, I do think that ultimately we will run out of DNA, due to deleterious mutations and death in general. Yes, that's true, but most seem to believe it is junk. And yes, we are still functioning humans, though our lifespan is much shorter than before the flood and even for some time afterward, and we are vulnerable to all kinds of diseases which seem to be increasing all the time. Leftovers from what? I know that evolution interprets it as the remnants of all the evolutionary changes in the past that have been transcended by new adaptations. Well, why in junk DNA? In functioning DNA I'd have no problem agreeing with you, but what's the evidence that any change to junk DNA makes any real difference? Yeah, but what's the nature of the change? From what I've read the mutations there don't produce functioning DNA.Edited by Faith, : correct quote box codeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such normal experience of flooding would work against the retention of a myth about a worldwide flood; it would be too common an experience for them to make a big deal out of it. Periodic flooding would more likely produce stories about cyclical disasters.The worldwide existence of versions of this story is definitely evidence for the same flood that the Bible story presents. You wish, but that's simply a debunking interpretation based on a refusal to believe a worldwide flood occurred, which is what the myths actually support.Besides, it seems to me if the Black Sea flooded, the Dardanelles, the Bosporus, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea would also have flooded, they being interconnected, as a rise in level would have flooded out the narrow land areas between these bodies of water; and if the Mediterranean flooded, that would mean the oceans had flooded and there you have it anyway. Well, don't get pedantically hung up on terminology. The worldwide occurrence of these stories, however they should be classified, is the important thing. Yes, such stories are usually exaggerated and embellished in a variety of ways, but their theme makes them good evidence along with the Biblical story which presents the true facts. Actually, no, it's a decent argument. Nothing wrong with it at all.But let's get back to hypermicroevolution as we've begun to stray off topic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

one final OT asidethe black sea was flooded by the meditarannean.if you read my post a short while back (a response to jar), to which arach? answeredI stated that biblical flood is explained by x sea being flooded when a natural dam busted. this dam separated the medtiarannean and the black sea (which was at that point empty).arach's response gave the sea it happened to.i think the show was on the history channel.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Must have missed it. Empty? Too bad I didn't see it. Sounds like the usual official debunkery to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith: 'Quite well'--what is that? This should be a slam dunk! You are talking about the biggest disaster ever to hit the planet. A global catastrophic flood would allow no other interpretations.One should find fossils in a chaotic jumble. Large land animals trying to escape flood waters would end up in similar strata (mammoth, sauropods, ground sloths) as would large marine creatures (basilosaurs, mosasaurs, orthocones). Scientists say sauropods won't end up with mammoths because they evolved at different times. But you know this is not true. Right?And--since you are sure creationism is true--you know everything you need to know to begin the expeditions to find these things. Creationists already have the experts, right? They have the organizational resources. They have a unifying theory. It's time for them to roll up their sleeves and start mapping strata. Click those cameras. Bring in those bones and artifacts. Kid stuff. Why set your sights so low?You should be able to find whole mountain ranges, Faith, whole canyons and gorges where the established evolutionary sequence never appears at all. A global flood is a catastrophe--chaotic, messy, tragic. It would leave an untold jumble of fossils over areas so vast that evolutionists can never sort it out. Look hard, search the world, and find the dramatic proof you know is out there: the therapsid skeletons with spear points embedded in the rib cages, the remains of human settlements trampled underfoot by the panicking herds of titanosaurs, the archaic temples flooded with broken idols and the pathetic, charred bones of sacrificed protoceratops.Why are you waiting for evolutionary scientists to find this evidence for you? You don't trust them. You obviously think they'd just hush it up anyway. It follows that the real scientists--the creationists!--have to take the research responsibilities into their own hands. Get out there!Urge the faithful to pull together and sponsor and dispatch these global expeditions. Find the vast regions of flood deposits with their helter-skelter jumble of fossils. Use dating methods to to establish that the evolutionary chronology cannot possibly account for what you have found. Then come galumphing back. End the evolutionist lie once and for all.You'll have no trouble... if creationism is true.Polystrate trees. Pshaw.

---

Archer

unless you're using a different defintion of allele then I am, an allele is (in classical genetics--the pea experiments) one of two versions of a gene. In moder genetics, the allele is one of several versions of a gene (thanks to skin color, eye color).G and g are the two alleles, always paired, so you get
GG, Gg, gG, gg. (which means my defintion of allele is slightly off)
in peas, this is for color, G dominant, g recessive, GG grean, Gg green, gG green, gg yellow.we have a speciation event--for whatever reason, the peas refuse to produce viable seeds. Pa and Pb are our new species. but what's different? has the number of alleles been reduced? let's say that it was color that did it. only greens will mix with greens.
that means that Pa has GG, Gg, gG represented. both alleles there.
Pb has gg.somewhere though, I think I got something screwed up. probably what alleles are. let's say that that junk DNA has been methylated (methyl group added to it, shutting it down). that's a type of mutation. a reversible one that can let the gene be once again expressed. equally probable is that something good could come back--like being able to make our onw vitamin C again. we don't know what a good chunk of the junk does, so it's too early to make any probability statements like this.we could easily measure the decrease in difference between members of the same species. It should be continuing to happen, right? After all, you do claim that it is happening to us all, and we do know what our genome, and the genome of many other species are. So we can just remap the genome after an arbitrary unit of time to see if ther is this decrease. Unless, of course, the process of genetic deterioration stopped inbetween the fall and now. At which point, things would get way confusing. Did it stop at a different time for each different species? When did it stop? Does evolution within the kind no longer happen then? (it would, becuase speciation occurs due to loss of genetic variability, and if we stop that process, then it is no longer deteriorating, meaning not even the accepted microevolution is happening). In other words, we can see it if it was the case. More than 1 to 2% of our DNA is functional. We do have about 30,000 functioning genes. But you are right in the sense that most of our DNA that we do have is non functioning. But does this automatically mean that it is drastically reduced? No. In the case of the vitamin C gene, it was a couple of mutations. One or two changes in something isn't drastic, except for possible consequences. Like, if our Hox genes became disabled, we wouldn't develop properly while in the womb, thus dying. But the actual change to the gene might not be drastic. I don' know of any in humans, but there's one in mice, thanks to methylation, that makes the tail kink. (methylation making it nonfunctional). Remove the methyl group added to that gene, and it becomes functional. That's also an example of a non-functional gene (or becoming one) that isn't drastic--life threatening. It won't show in the phenotype, true. But there's still a difference between be and my brother. And the difference is real, if not published for all to see. And if a mutation can increase the differences, because it increases the variability, then it's very important for what you propose. It would invalidate your position of a deteriorating genetic code, because it instead is increasing the variation present.(example is hypothetical. but, I most likely do have mutation he doens't have, and vice versa)as to that very final part, it ties in with what's directly above this. It increases variability, counter to your claims of decreasing variability. It doesn't matter if it's functioning or not, the increase is still real.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Well, the truth is that the alternative interpretations are a pathetically jerryrigged bunch, and we creationists are trying our best to break the spell they have on so many, but alas, the desire to do away with the God of the Bible and affirm our animal nature seems to exert a remarkable influence. The oceans are stratified by temperature, and traversed by a variety of currents. The action of these plus wave action plus the habit creatures have of flocking together plus the fact that it is marine life that is on the bottom and land life doesn't appear until the upper strata, are sufficient explanation for the sorting. Yes I do. We assume natural habitat explains a lot of the sorting, and especially the closer grouping together under the threat of the rising flood waters. And I'm not so sure some of these groups aren't found in the same layers, since the layers are defined by content in different parts of the planet, so some of the sorting may be simply the function of biased defintion. A good idea I think overall, if there were enough geologically minded creationists for the job. I'm not sure about the funding or the organizational resources. Or that anyone knows where to look for evidence either. Why would we know that? My your imagination is charming. But most of the current evidence is quite good for the Flood. Beds of jumbled up dinosaurs for instance demonstrate massive sudden death. Most likely most human settlements were simply completely washed away, destroyed, and human remains simply rotted. Few fossils to be expected there. I'm too old and not sufficiently scientifically minded, but I'd love it if a legion of young creationists would do the job.Oh but I do trust evolutionists to find the stuff eventually, I just don't trust their interpretations. How many creationists who believe in the flood who are also trained geologists do you think exist? Certainly if God would like to bestow a few $billion on me I'd jump at the chance to fund such a thing. I'd fund laboratories and give grants to the most promising young creationist scientists and THEN we'd see some action.

you know, I wonder why that is?that is, that there are so few (to non existant) trained geologists who believe in the flood.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

So these differences aren't big enough to separate these into different "kinds"?I presume this means that the cat "kind" on the ark had all the extra genes needed for all of these.I presume then this means that Noah had all the genes needed for the gorillas, orangs and chimps that must be his decendents. They are closer than my cat is to a tiger.Edited by NosyNed, : fix dbcodes

I don't see why they would be. Yes. I'm sure a single simian would have sufficed for that group. How do you know this? Just guessing obviously. The main difference is size. Giantism even still happens anomalously in human beings. May very well mean there were races of giants a few millennia ago. As the Bible suggests. Probably more before the Flood. No reason a great variety of sizes wouldn't be normal variations in the cat family. In fact aren't there some giant types of animals in the fossil record that are much smaller in their modern living forms? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, a few considerations here.How big a population of Biblical creationists do you think there is for starters?What percentage of any population has science aptitude?What percentage of working geologists get interesting research jobs as opposed to jobs they take for the purpose of supporting the family, in the oil industry or the like?Where is this money coming from to recruit them?How do you expect them to be able to avoid having to work within the evolutionist paradigm on most jobs?It's not that creationist geologists don't exist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.