Faith's Participation in EvC

I don't think Faith's argument on microevolutionary processes being such that they prohibit macroevolution was ever effectively answered. Those processes do appear to lead to less genetic variety, and as such are more dead-ends than new branches for macro-evolution, as evos claim. Moreover, evos have never shown many of their key claims to be true. They assert their claims, such as claiming mutations are random, and then demand they be disproven. it's not a objective approach to the data.faith's points on the fossil record and mine have never been refuted either. There is more, but this is not a debate thread here for that sort of thing.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

That is not a fair statement. I don't bring that up unless the argument goes in that direction.As for not refuting me, I think I've made many great points in debates here that have NEVER EVER EVER been acknowledged by anyone one the evo side, great points about the untenability of the geo column {edit: meant geo time table} explanation for the stratifications, great points about the overall trend to genetic depletion, great points about the lack of evidence for mutation as the source of genetic variability. If points made by each side were all tallied up fairly in columns, my arguments would come up quite respectably.{Edit: Oh and the constant refrain that creos never have answered the ORDER of the fossil record, which was recently repeated somewhere, by jar I believe, is simply false. It's been answered in two ways: one has to do with the fact that the bottom layers of the geo column are marine life, and land life appears later. The other answer is related to an experiment done by a Frenchman that came up not long ago. I forget where that discussion went, but he showed that the sediments and other contents carried in layers or currents of water do not precipitate out in the order that common sense would expect. I forget that example now, would have to look it up. These arguments are good arguments, and evo arguments haven't defeated them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, thanks.Since our, or at least my, standing here is being questioned, and the implication is that I've never made a scientific argument here, let alone a good one, it's not really off topic but yes, we shouldn't argue it further.Good to see you here, Randman.

Exactly, and yet somehow you are accussed of dodging issues. Imo, it's disgusting because many of these points and others raised by critics of evolution are seeming knowingly being ignored, dodged, misrepresented, etc,....and yet the evos claim their critics are the ignorant ones.Why are these points ignored? I think it's worth discussing and speculating on. Maybe data that is uncomfortable to the evo paradigm is simply shut out as if it doesn't exist.

Well, all they notice is when I get weary with the dozens of supposed answers thrown at me and don't get back to answering some of them, even though some of the answers are really not worthy of a moment's attention, and others are so technical I can't be expected to think them through in a rapidfire discussion. However, it's "dishonest" of me when I don't answer them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The real pattern is one of baseless and false accusations from the creationist side.Faith's argument on microevolution critically relied on the assumption that mutation could never replace the lost variation. That claim was never adequately supported - and it required ad hoc assumptions about "super genomes" to account for the observed genetic variation.Thus Faith's argument failed.

But somehow the subtleties of what constitutes a tail is dead-bang proof of evolution.....never seems to occur to them that interpreting the mutation or whatever that causes the rare tail to be the result of past regression is basically a subjective interpretation. I mean when some people have 6 fingers does that mean we all came from 6-finger apes too?getting off-topic....oh well, better drop it

This is typical. The evidence offered for mutation's ability to do that was pathetically insufficient, and that's all the support I need. Denial is what is going on on the evo side.Also, the super genome is NOT an "assumption," Paul, it is a hypothesis, and something in that direction has yet to be explored thoroughly.

The problem is those of us that have lived for awhile have often seen evos forced to admit that those baseless and false accusations (such as the accusations towards haeckel or the fossil record were once described) were not so baseless and false after all.Btw, did you catch in the news where the new theory is that Britain was separated from the Continent in a catastrophic flood?

So in other words, you guys never could prove and never have proved or verified that mutations do add genetic material at a rate sufficient to replace that which is lost due to variation. You just asserted a theory that mutations do add genetic material sufficient, and this is evo dogma but evidently never backed up, and a non-scientist has come up with an idea that shows the lack of objective verification of a basic theory and dogma held by evo scientists?And yet, you bash her?Un-freakin-believable!If you were the truth-seeking, scientifically-minded folks you claim to be, you'd hail her as brilliant, and say, yep, it's a serious error and we've been wrong to assert this for so long without ever taking into account the genetic material lost in variation.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Yes, they will claim huge credits for the thinnest reasoning.Oh well, you are right, we're getting too far off the topic now.I enjoy the fray here but maybe it's been done to death and it's time to leave anyway.

quote:

---

Oh and the constant refrain that creos never have answered the ORDER of the fossil record, which was recently repeated somewhere, by jar I believe, is simply false. It's been answered in two ways: one has to do with the fact that the bottom layers of the geo column are marine life, and land life appears later. The other answer is related to an experiment done by a Frenchman that came up not long ago.

---

Yes this should be dealt with as an example of the real problem here. The first point has bean dealt with here - and as I recall it Faith actually resorted to trying to shut down any mention of the details that refute it. The order is not as simple as "marine life then land life" - marine life goes all the way up the geological column. It is more about "why do we find icthyosaurs and plesioaurs and THEN whales and dolphins" - or even "why do we find land-based animals that have whale-like features BEFORE early whales ?".Berthault's experiment is not even relevant - it's supposedly about geological strata, not fossils and even then it said nothing that wasn't already known.Part of the problem is the repetition of creationist arguments AFTER they have been exposed as fallacious - and this is a good example. Thanks for the demonstration !

What amazes me Faith is that a non-scientist like yourself can take a good, long look at evo claims and find such obvious lack of objective verification of some of their most basic claims. Heck, the idea you should be able to prove mutations cannot add genetic material back is totally looney. If evolutionism was real science, they'd have considered the argument on what is lost in variation and considered the mutational rate (molecular clock) and BEFORE EVER ASSERTING MUTATIONS DRIVING MACROEVOLUTION, they'd have to prove that by showing mutational rates in observed mutations are sufficient and beneficial and at a rate to overcome the loss of genetic diversity.Heck, it appears they never even thought of it, or if someone has, there is no real evidence I have seen around here for it.Instead the evos assert their dogma, and then say if you cannot disprove it, it must be true, and then claim that is real science!

quote:

---

This is typical. The evidence offered for mutation's ability to do that was pathetically insufficient, and that's all the support I need. Denial is what is going on on the evo side.

---

And there you have the double standard. WE need to know the rates - YOU don't. You can just assume that you're right.

quote:

---

Also, the super genome is NOT an "assumption," Paul, it is a hypothesis, and something in that direction has yet to be explored thoroughly.

---

If you are taking it as true - as needs to be done to defend your arguments - then you are using it as an assumption. And we have done some exploration - see the discussion of Oetzi for instance. And it came up empty.

I will take your word for it that you destroyed the old earth arguements.Ok I made the egregious mistake of challenging you to list them here. How about starting a new fresh topic with your unassaliable position made clear. I should be scolded.But to the point, however I have my doubt that your points were decisive when you make statements like: BTW I asked you earlier if you agree that a Hindu or Hopi creationist also has a valid basis for discussing science based on their own premise that their 'God said it - it is fact'.In this respect is Bibical Creation Science and Hopi Creation Science on equal footing?