Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

"Convince-me" asked a question concerning the differences in DNA between similar animals.My reply is that you are looking at the scenario with the assumption that evolution is a reality, which to date, we cannot. Evolutionary theory has not yet been codified as a reality in nature, simply because every so-called proof, or evidence, has the built in assumption that evolutionary thoery is a reality, and with that built in assumption, none of those proofs can legitimately be used as evidence without peripheral reasons.At any rate, when you take away the unverified, and some say unverifiable, assumption that evolution is a reality, this argument loses any explanatory power that it may have had, and that wasn't a whole lot. Similarity in evolutionary circles means the same as relatedness - only because of that all-encompassing assumption. With similarity remaining only that, similarity, all evolutionary scenarios vanish in a puff of smoke. Convergance has shown that similarity doesn't cut the cake with, or without, the assumption that the naturalistic paradigm is a reality.Have a nice day!

I do not yet know how to quote on this board, so I am going by memory. BAsically, when I talk about the assumption of evolutionary thoery, I am talking about how every so-called evidence for the theory rests solely upon that assumption.For example, it is my understanding that the fossil record can only be interpreted as evidence for evolutionary doctrine when the assumption of evolution is involved. Without that assumption, the fossil record does not give credence to TOE. The evolutionary geological construct is based upon hypothetical evolutionary fossil standings...the strata is "aged" by the fossils found within it, based upon the assumption that evolution is a fact of nature.Similarity within comparative anatomy does not demonstrate evolutionary ancestor - descendant relationships, except by the assumption that evolutionary theory is a fact of nature. Similarity is only similarity, and nothing more. Since similarity alone does not demonstrate conclusively evolutionary relationships as far as phylogeny is concerned, it gives no help to homology. Especially since homology is used to classify organisms based uupon similarity and not based upon supposed evolutionary relationships.Those relationships are imposed upon the data, via the assumption that evolution is a reality, it is not recieved in straight forward observation of the facts. I have only touched a few of the so-called evidences for TOE, but they all run the same, based upon the assumption that evolution is a reality. Since every single one of these evidences are thus based, none of them can be used as supporting evidence for one another.For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.Basically, what I am getting at is this. In times past, creationists have argued that all of the evidence for TOE is circumstantial. This is not the case, for circumstantial evidence is based upon solidly based peripheral evidence, and is utilized as "clean-up" evidence to solidify the case even further just in case there is any "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury. Evolutionary theory has no solid evidence, nor even circumstantial evidence, because all of that given as evidence rests on the single assumption that TOE is a reality.Since none of the evidence can stand on its own merit without the assumption (for assumptions are only utilized until the factual story has been codified as "the way it really happened"), nor with any peripheral evidence solidly laid down for that assumption to be solidly infered from, TOE has no legitimate evidence.Evolutionary theorists can keep on inferring all they want to, and they can expect that the public will keep on believing them if they want to. But sooner or later, and I believe that the time has far passed, they are going to have to stop using inferrence based upon the assumption of the reality of TOE and find some solid evidence that would give the theory some kind of hold in fact.To date, I have seen none that can stand up against scientific scrutiny by unbiased minds.I will hit your other comment in the next post, I am having problems with my modem cutting me off for staying in one place too long...drat!

What I meant by similarity I hope was already cleared up in my last post, but just in case that it was not, this is what I meant.Similarity is the basis for comparitiv anatomy, which is the basis for homology, taxonomic classification and cladistic analysis for finding evolutionary ancestor-descendant relationships among living and extinct species. All of these fields of science have in their "attitudes" or modes of research the assumption (from here on out referred to as "the grand assumption") that TOE is a reality.Phylogeny, from what I have understood, has been proclaimed by some to be the only real evidence that evolutionary theory has on its side, because all of the other so-called evidences have slowly slipped the way of the do-do. If what I have read is true, then TOE is in even worse trouble than it was when genetics was discovered.For, if this is true, since phylogenetic dendrograms are based upon cladistic analysis, which is based upon homology, which is based upon comparative anatomy - and all of them assume the grand assumption in order to reach their intended goals - then the whole infrastructure collapses when the assumption is taken out of the equation. And why would we do that? Because if we are honest people, we see that there is no peripheral evidence legitimizing the assumption which all of these things are based upon and flow from.ANY THEORY THAT ONLY STANDS BY THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT IT MAKES IS NOT A FACTUAL ENTITY EXCEPT FOR WITHIN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO HOLD TO IT.This is why, the next time TOE comes into a court room, it will be a long and drawn out case, because TOE cannot stand in a court of law. And if TOE cannot stand in a court of law by objectivity, then it does not stand outside of a court of law by objectivity to those who have no emotional attatchment to it.I sincerely hope that I did not offend anyone.Have a nice day!

To PaulK, sure, the specimens of "archy" have feathers and lizard characteristics, but without the assumption of evolution behind the evolutionary interpretation...there is no cause for an evolutionary interpretation.If I follow this line of reasoning, then I would be in-line with reasoning that the platypus belongs to both mammal and bird ancestry. We both know that this is not the case.The case for "archy" is based upon the assumption of evolutionary common ancestry. i.e., that they have features common to both birds and lizards. This in no way means that these similar traits is a sign that Archy is an ancestor of birds, nor any other lizard with feathers. This is assumption of TOE and assumption that similarity means relatedness. Nothing more.The same gose for so-called whale evolution. There are too many problems with the stories that evolution cannot fix, even with all of the assumptions behind it.

Well, it needn’t be equivocal evidence, but when you start making cladograms of multiple characters, & they are consistent with phylogenies derived from other data, then you have strong evidence suggesting evolution happened. Nor do you need to assume evolution,
either. It is a test of the theory.Seeing as how phylogenies are based upon the assumption of TOE by themselves, then you cannot legitimately use them in a debate for evidence for TOE unless you have peripheral evidence collaborating it. The problem here is that all the evidence for TOE
that has been brought to bear on the subject all contain the same grand assumption. This negates any evidence for TOE unless some can be provided that speaks for itself. To date,
there is none.Data is not self evident. It requires interpretation. See below.Not all data requires interpretation. When a murder is investigated, and there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple, you need no interpretation that there is a bullet hole in the deceased temple. Some data requires interpretation, yes. And when all of the data needs to be interpreted via one viewpoint only, especially when that interpretation presupposes an assumption throughout the data that cannot be verified without supporting assumption...we have a problem. Similarity in DNA or any other aspect of biological organisms does not imply descent with modification, unless you assume TOE into the equation. That is fine, unless and until you cannot find peripheral evidence independant of the grand assumption. When you cannot, the assumption must be dropped and a new one put into its place. This is how science works.I said...
For example, one cannot legitimately call upon the fossil record (with its assumption that TOE is a reality) and then call upon homology as far as it bears on fossils with its assumption that TOE is a reality.Mark said...Yes you can. New fossil discoveries that are consistent with evolutionary theory are tests of the theory. Nothing need be assumed.What fossils? Bambiraptor, with non-existant feathers applied to the models simply because cladistics says that they should be there? No. That does not qualify for our discussion, that only qualifies as examples of the zealousness of certain individuals and groups and their efforts at solidifying their pet theory.According to your reasoning, there is no such thing as an electron. Any test or observation you could make to conclude that there is a discrete negative charge carrying particle, would have to rest on the assumption that such a thing exists before you can assert it."In fact, you’ve just written off ALL of scientific enquiry. No data can be presented in support of any theory because you are assuming that theory to be true in order to do so!Negative. My reasoning does not state anything of the sort. My reasoning says that you begin with an assumption, but sooner or later, for that assumption to be solidified and able to be legitimately used as evidence in the matter, there must be peripheral evidence independent of the assumption utilized in the beginning of the investigation. This is how evidence is maintained in a court of law. Evolutionary theory has no such evidence, for all of its so-called evidence includes the beginning assumption, and is therefore invalidated. In other words, you cannot legitimately use homology as evidence for TOE when the fact of TOE is built into the maintenance of homology, unless you have supporting evidence from the side somewhere (peripheral evidence) that can verify that assumption WITHOUT assuming the same assumption.This includes similarity in DNA and other macromolcules of different organisms.Have a nice day!By the way, can someone tell me how I can do quotes on this board, I do not yet know how this is accomplished. thanks!

"Perhaps you can explain why the fact that archaeopteryx is a clear intermediate is NOT in itself reason for an evolutionary interpretation."Because in one person's mind the similarity between two organisms means "intermediate" only because they assume that TOE is a fact of nature. To others who see that similarity, but see no peripheral evidence for support of that assumption, that similarity is only similarity. It means nothing more. Tell you what, if you can provide some peripheral evidence that in itself does not include the grand assumption that TOE is a reality, then I will give credence to it."If you properly analysed the platypus - as taxonomists have you would not conclude that it is related to birds. The "bill" resembles a duck's bill in general shape but it is not a beak."What makes it a beak or not? Both a duck and a platypus utilize the bill in the same manner. How are you defining "beak"?"The case for archaeopteryx IS based on the clear anatomical similarities. So long as you accept the possibility of evolution then evolution can be shown to be the best explanation for those similarities. All without assuming that evolution is true."This is not so. If you solely base Archy's stand as an intermediate on similarity alone, then it may have the credulity it would take in order to allow an unbaised mind to see TOE as a possibility. However, when we take all other things into consideration - such as that TOE has no bonafide mechanism for itself - the idea falls through, especially when there is no peripheral evidence to support the notion that can stand up against common sense evaluation and scientific scrutiny...unless one is attached to the notion from the outset."The same goes for whales - but more so since there are several species involved and the genetic data indicates a relationship which was LATER confirmed by clear fossil evidence."Have you examined those so-called whale evolution fossils closely with a scrutinizing eye, PaulK? Have you put into consideration all of the anatomical changes that would have had to take place and asked yourself how in the world could they have taken place and yet still produce a creature that could function long enough to reproduce and continue the line for hundreds of thousands of years while waiting for then next small point mutation to change it just a litle bit more? I have, and there is no way.Shifting the hip from canine position to modern whale position would require massive make-overs. This would change and destroy at the same time spinal attachments, nerve endings, muscluar structure, etc. The hind legs would eventually become useless, and how many thousands of amino acid substitutions would be necessary for such a feat? No one knows, but do you know why? Because evolutionary theorists give us only the just-so stories of how a whale came to be from a canine-like ancestor but never work out the details in how such a feat could even be a possibility.If you have seen one, please e-mail it to me, I will give you my address. But to tell me that a whale came from a land dwelling ancestor millions of years ago is to tell me nothing scientifically, it is a story, and nothing more. Based upon similarities and the fact that cladistics (utilizing the grand assumption) dictates that it must be so just because a whale is a mammal. That doesn't cut it, not until they can produce a plausible route for that evolutionary line."Your explanation offers no clear reasoning - but it seems that you do indeed insist that the proper approach is to close your mind to even the possibility of evolution. That would rule out finding evidence for evolution, but it would certainly not be a sound approach."What explanation? What I am addressing is the fact that evolutionary theorists have pulled the wool over the eyes of people, that their TOE explanations do not stand up against unblinded scrutiny. All evolutionary explanations to date that I have come across entail the grand assumption based on the grand assumption, based upon the grand assumption. Conjecture upon speculation upon assumption...with no peripheral evidential standing anywhere. This is where my scepticism lies, and this is why, from the standpoint of legal evidence, I do not consider evolution a possibility.This is why...ready? IN ORDER FOR AN ASSUMPTION TO BE CONSIDERED, IT MUST FIRST BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS A POSSIBILITY, AND THAT POSSIBILITY MUST FIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.In other words, if you find me dead in my car, you could at first assume foul play. Once you examine the body as a good investigator would do, you find no evidence of foul play, therefore you have to rule out the possibility that I was murdered. This was a very real possibility at first, but the evidence ruled it out.AFter Darwin the possibility of TOE was brought to the forefront, but the idea has received too many death blows since that time, especially in the modern genetics age. The possibility has been eroded through scientific research, and at each turn in order to stick with the paradigm, the grand assumption has been utilized. Evidence upon evidence that incorporates the grand assumption does not stand, it fell, and great was the fall.If you can provide evidence that does not rest upon the grand assumption, that does not rest upon further evidence incorporating the grand assumption, then you will have 110% of my attention.Have a nice day!

PaulK and others, I don't have the time right at this moment to answer all these posts, but I will get to it ASAP!Have a nice day!

quote:

---

I quite agree, but observing a fossil form that has reptilian & bird like characters is independent of evolution, so by your own argument can be legitimately included as evidence. You do not have to assume evolution to observe the data.

---

True, I agree. What I am trying to help you understand is that simply observing the similar characters in an organism does not necessarily imply TOE, you do not need to assume evolution to observe the data. But the next step that an evolutionist will take is to say, "Look, this reptile has feathers like a modern day bird. Therefore it must be an intermediate between reptiles and birds." Now, where does this "therefore" statement come from? From the assumption of TOE, which at this point is not a "bad" thing, it is part of scientific investigation. What I am trying to get at is the fact that sooner or later, we must have solid evidence that needs no outrageous interpretation (interpretations that the facts do not warrant) in order for those assumptions to hold validity in the debate. And TOE has none.

quote:

---

False. Molecular phylogenies are based upon the TESTABLE assumption of heritable mutation, & that the nature of relationships can be recovered. So it to is independent of (macro)evolution, & is therefore also legitimate evidence.

---

But see, the assumption of heritable mutation is based upon the assumption that the entirety of the genome of every organism on this planet was formed by one successive mutation after another. This can not be tested, nor validated in any way, shape or form. As such, it is therefore invalid because the assumption is untestable. As a result, the assumption of heritable mutation is also untestable from being based on the first untestable assumption.

quote:

---

That is the data! The interpretation would be the methodology you used to determine the calibre of weapon used, with what weapon, from how far was it fired, fired by whom etc.

---

You are confusing interpretation of the data with the investigation of the crime. The two are not the same thing. The bullet hole needs no interpretation, it is a bullet hole. Determining the kind of firearm, calibre and so on is the investigative part, not the interpretating part.

quote:

---

So when evolutionary theory states that there should be fossils which possess characters between two later taxa (predictions), then we can legitimately interpret Archaeopteryx to be a transitional fossil between reptiles & birds.

---

The problem here is the FACT that TOE theorists NEVER predicted Archy, they found him and then retrodicted the entire scenario. A retrodiction does not hold the power that a prediction holds, it tells us nothing substantial that helps us in our investigation. A retrodiction is nothing but an observation after the fact. Also, we cannot legitimately interprete Archy as a transitional fossil because, once again, that interpretation comes from the assumption of TOE, springing from the assumption of similarity, springing from other assumptions all native to TOE alone, with no solid anchoring evidence.

quote:

---

And when molecular phylogeny produces consistent results that show modern lineages to be related in similar ways (again, a prediction), this is legitimate evidence of macroevolution in phylogenies consisting of of higher taxa.

---

First of all, molecular phylogeny is a sham. A phylogeny has to do with living organisms descending via sexual/asexual reproduction, and your molecules do not mate or divide to produce offspring. They are built by complicated biomolecular machinery within your cells.Secondly, think about what you are saying. If an organisms phenotype is different from another's by only a few differences, then their molecular make-up typically will differ also...where? Only in those areas within the genome corresponding to the physical differences. This does not give evidence of TOE, this only demonstrates developmental biological differences.

quote:

---

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution. Once you start racking up all the predictions that have been realised, then you can place much more confidence that your hypothesis is indeed indicative of reality. Such evidence may very well be equivocal or not, but it is still valid evidence. This is the process by which electrons were discovered, & is the same process by which evolution is supported evidentially.

---

True, absolutely true as far as you description of scientific method goes. However, this does not hold true for TOE. For example, July 2000 article in Scientific American, a peer-reviewed journal, Mayr makes the following clear statement about evolutionary theory in an article entitled "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought"..."Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." (p. 80)(Emphasis mine)By not holding to any laws of nature, TOE cannot be tested on any scientific level. By not holding to any laws, experimentation is indeed impossible. Predictions based upon cladistics is, as Mayr points out, only an exercise in "story telling" i.e., making up stories about how one thinks an organism came to be based upon the assumption that evolution is a reality.Now please tell me, if it cannot be tested empirically because it holds to no physical laws of nature, and if all evolutionary scenarios are only "just-so" stories based upon the assumption of TOE made up by evolutionary theorists on how they THINK it happened, what have you got if not the largest and most expensive fairy tale ever spun by the priest-hood of evolutionary theorists?

quote:

---

Observations are made without assuming evolution. The data is objective, not subjective. If the data is predicted by evolution, then it is evidence of evolution, in the same way we tested whether our victim was shot by a gun or a crossbow.

---

Again, you are confusing interpretation with the data at hand. When I said shot in the temple, I meant that the direct observation told the story without any interpretation. There was a bullet hole, no shaft sticking out of the deceased's head, only a circular hole which would also exclude a knife, axe, etc. This was not a test of the mode of death, it was a simple observation that needed no interpretation to one who has experience with types of wounds.Secondly, evolution is incapable of predicting anything, period. All such predictions are retrodictions, which are in fact observations after the fact, having no predictive power. As far as similarity goes in fossils, and stating that because TOE predicts similarities in species "related" by descent, this is nothing more than similarities and the assumption of TOE again, not circular reasoning, but circular argumentation.

quote:

---

A gradual morphological change over time, as predicted by evolution. A transition between taxa also documented by molecular evidence (who’s 2 testable assumptions are not that macroevolution is real, but that mutations are heritable, & the relationships of subsequent lineages can be recovered by phylogenetic analyses).

---

My last answer addresses both your pictures and the above quote. Nothing but pure similarity, mixed with the assumption of descent with modification from a single common ancestor. In reality, descent with modification from common ancestry can only be codified in direct ancestor - descendant relationships (your grandparents to your parents to you...not your ancestry 400 years ago, or worse), all else is untestable nonsense.It is common sense that amphibians and reptiles share more common characteristics that amphibians and humans. In and of itself this observation does not speak of descent with modification (TOE), all it speaks of is degrees of similarity / diversity ratios. And that is all that it speaks of. To see TOE in this scenario, you have to assume it into the equasion. This is fine, if once again, you have supporting peripheral observations that need hardly any or no interpretation, such as a bullet wound verses the shaft of an arrow sticking out of the wound.Every scenario in TOE is a made up story by a theorist holding to an untrue paradigm - naturalism. Naturalism is not the criterion of scientific investigation, discovering "what is" and "why it is" is the criterion, no matter where that may lead us. Because evolutionary theorists still to their paradigm over the scientific method, their "science" is performed incorrectly from the very beginning. TOE was assumed correct from the first printing of Origins and from that time onward theorists have only looked for confirming evidence, and have never been compelled to test their hypothesis.What destroys TOE today is the fact that we have young scientists today more interested in testing the theory's assumptions against the known FACTS of nature rather than blindly believing what they were told in our colleges and universities.Have a nice day!

quote:

---

Phylogenetic reconstruction is premised on the fact that mutations occur and can be passed on to progeny. That evolution is an underlying assumption is warranted.

---

A couple of things.#1 It is a fact that mutations occur.
#2 It is a fact that some mutations are passed on to progeny.
#3 TOE is not a warranted underlying assumption when it is divorced from the assumption that mutations add to the instructional information of the genome...which has never been established and codified as a reality.When it can be demonstrated that a mutation can add to the informational content of the genome instead of being neutral (like an extra space in a line of type) or destructive, then you will have a hypothesis that can be tested and demonstrated true or false. To date, TOE has none.Remember the definition of a mutation: a change in DNA by addition, deletion or substitution of amino acids during replication. Adaptive variational changes are not mutations, they are changes in the expression of genes switched on by environmental ques.

quote:

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

---

We are not discussing the evidences for creation on this board, only the evidential standing of similarity among organisms based upon the assumption of the fact of TOE.If you like, start one up and let me know where it is...although, since this discussion is taking a long, time consuming hand, it may be difficult for me to have enough time for this one and that one. If you don't mind long intervals between posts, go for it! I will be there. Just let me know where.Have a nice day![This message has been edited by PhospholipidGen, 04-04-2003]

quote:

---

Funny - I was not aware that any scientific theory would need to be 'established' in a court of law. Of course, this claim seems to have ignored the round-about way ion which bibical creationism was shown not to be scientific while evolution is in the Arkansas case in the 1980s.

---

Typical retort. However, in all court cases to date where evolution was the subject matter, it was always pitted against creation theory. Hopefully, the next time it comes up, it will not be as such, but instead the assumptions behind the theory will be addressed (if I have anything to do with it) and TOE will lose its profound standing in schools that it currently illegitimately enjoys.Hasta.

quote:

---

The evolutionary model is inferred from a vast weight of separate data points.

---

True, however, those data points lose their explanatory power...which is what science is all about, when all of those points entail the grand assumption and not one gives the evidential standing on its own merit that TOE needs.

quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean by ToE having no mechanism for itself. The mechanisms are simple: heritable variation and natural selection. These two mechanisms are all that is needed to produce the diversity of life on Earth from a single ancestor.

---

I would like to answer this in detail, since it is the main contention, but it has to do with genetics and this string concerns similarity. I will start a new string and call it "The Nature of Mutations"...see you there.

quote:

---

Consider that an organism is grown from scratch as part of its pre-natal development.

---

This is not accurate. Organisms are not grown from "scratch", they are built following specific directional instructions. The change that you referred to is not haphazard nor due to chance.

quote:

---

Again, how do you know? If the limbs are growing in that way to begin with (evolutionary biologists conclude that evolution in gross body plan is linked to the genes that control body development during gestation), why would anything have to be severed? If you would only look you would find that biologists have models for these scenarios.

---

I have looked, and I have found none. The closest that I have found is "such and such organism modified into such and such organism, but we can't say exact ancestor-descendant relationship, only group to group relationships". That tells me nothing. When I want to know how you turn a fish into an amphibian, and an amphibian into a reptile, regardless of similarity, but having everything to do with development, I am not enlightened at all by "evolution found a way."

quote:

---

The details have been largely postulated. But they may not make sense to you (they only barely do to me) without a better grounding in both genetic and developmental biology. Potentially, hing legs could be made useless (and therefore out of the way, an advantage for a water-living organism) with changes to a few control genes.

---

Yes, changes have been postulated, but they cannot be codified (solidifying of such statements through experimentation in discovering the facts/truth of the matter...gravity has been codified for example). Think about what you just said...hind legs could be made useless...then they are not an advantage to a land dwelling creature, then it would have the anti-thesis of fitness, it would not survive. If the creature was living in the water before such a change (which is against all common sense) then it would not be environmentally fit, still having only legs. The scenarios are only just-so stories, having no common sense logic behind it. They are made up because aquatic mammals present a problem for TOE. But, because TOE theorists are committed more to their paradigm than they are to discovering truth...no matter where that investigation leads them...they will continue to give birth to such ludicrous stories that cannot be verified nor even worked out on paper without throwing away common sense logic.Have a nice day!

quote:

---

The rest of your post makes it quite clear that you really did mean that you deny the evidence for evolution on the grounds that you refuse to accept evolution as a possibility.

---

This is incorrect, and an argumentative ploy on your part. Like I have said before, if you can provide evidence that does not rest on the grand assumption, that is not backed by peripheral evidence resting on the grand assumption, etc, then I can consider it a viable theory. Until solid evidence can be provided by means of a good investigation of the facts without being totally overshadowed by bias, then we do not have good ground for even considering it as a possibility...just as Darwin should not have until he had some solid evidence, which he didn't.

quote:

---

THat means that your original claim that the evidence for evolution rquired assumign evolution was false and misleading. Yet you seem prepared to make accusation of deception against others with no more basis than the fact that you refuse to accept that evolution is possible.

---

Another argumentative tactic. My claim is not false and misleading, it is according to common sense logical deduction in positive investigation of raised evidence. In my crime lab, you need more than just "hear-say" circumstantial evidence in order to say someone is guilty...even though you may KNOW that he is, you first have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. TOE does not, because it has not. If you are going to stand by TOE as a true believer, then you owe it to yourself to investigate it to its fulness, laying aside any strong bias that you have. It doesn't matter how much you may be emotionally attatched to this idea, if it doesn't pan out in true scientific investigation, then it is only an idea held to with no basis in reality.

quote:

---

Let me correct some of your other errors. Evolution does not rely solely on point mutations. You have not truly considered the evolution of whales - nor how developmental biology works. You have not even considered the fact that whales are descended from ungulates, not dogs!

---

You speak from what you do not know, and only assume. First, since point mutations can lead to frame shift mutations, and other types of mutations, this is correct. It was a generalized statement. For more discussion on this subject, see the thread that I started on mutations. Second, I have considered developmental biology, and it is run according to directional information (DNA), not happens chance. Third, I have not considered the "fact" of whale evolution because that would be putting the cart before the horse, don't you think?Until you can prove that evolution IS a fact, without assumption (because once a statement has been discovered to be true and factual it no longer requires the assumption that began the investigation), then you have no scientific reason to consider whale evolution. To date, all evolutionary theses remain in the realm of holding to the grand assumption, not one aspect of it stands investigation on it's own feet without that assumption.

quote:

---

Could you give some details of the facts that you are referring to?

​

I think there are also a number of facts which are taken as being in support of ToE. Are there any important one which you think are not factual?

---

Sure, see the new thread that I started on mutations.