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

quote:

---

My reply is that you are looking at the scenario with the assumption that evolution is a reality, which to date, we cannot.

---

Of course you can - it is called hypothesizing or theorizing. And, like any good scientific practice, it is tentative. If what we think we know is true then x, y, z follow, or may follow from that, and so on.

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory has not yet been codified as a reality in nature,

---

I have no idea what this means. Codified? How? By whom? Why "as a reality in nature"?

quote:

---

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.

---

Still not sure what you're getting at, but it sounds like you badly need to read up on the 18th century debate about evolution - read people like Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, de Buffon. They did not assume evolution was a reality - they had to work towards that conclusion.Can you expand on what you mean by 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? Can you give an example? Thanks.

quote:

---

Similarity in evolutionary circles means the same as relatedness - only because of that all-encompassing assumption.

---

Sounds to me like you are confusing similarity, analogy and homology. In evolutionary circles the terms used most are analogy and homology - analogy does not imply an evolutionary relationship, homology does. Any basic biology textbook will clarify this for you if you are still confused. "Similarity" is increasingly used in bioinformatics as a measure of the correspondence between two sequences and can be expressed in the form SequenceA is x% similar to SequenceB. No homology or evolutionary relationship is inferred.You seem somewhat confused by all this. Perhaps you just explained it badly - the terms "similarity", "relatedness", "convergance" (sic) being, as you might say, not quite sharply defined enough to cut the cake. Go and sharpen up - let's see if your next slice is any better.

quote:

---

Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that.

---

This is exactly what Mark is describing. An observation is made (the known) - someone inductively derives a hypothesis (the unknown.) They then work to make further observations which confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

quote:

---

IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.

---

Why?Also, I do wish you had listened to the DNA study more carefully. You might have had something more substantial to add.

quote:

---

The more mobile and intelligent the creature, the fewer fossils, simply because more of these were more likely to seek high ground or float on debris, if the disaster were a flood, so as not to be suddenly buried to become fossilized. Sudden burial and fossilization on such a massive scale as is observed implies a flood.

---

Curious. Therefore the distribution of fossils should reflect mobility and intelligence? Does the fossil record support this? Where would you expect moles to appear in the fossil record, or other slow moving mammals?Where would you expect sick and injured animals to appear in the fossil record? Do you have examples which would support your hypothesis here?How do you explain the distribution of flowering plants in the fossil record?

quote:

---

#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

---

What is "instructional information?"
Why the genome - what about epigenetic inheritance?

quote:

---

...which has never been established and codified as a reality.

---

What does "codified as a reality" mean?

quote:

---

Adaptive variational changes are not mutations, they are changes in the expression of genes switched on by environmental ques.

---

Says who?

quote:

---

We are not discussing the evidences for creation on this board

---

Read the title of the thread. Does the word "Duh" mean anything to you?

This is all just empty prattle. It's full of phrases like this: 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.Sounds good, huh? Yet not one iota of detail is provided to the support the contention that any of the evidence presented does "rest on the grand assumption." No attempt to identify what "solid evidence" consists in. No indication whatsoever that the writer has the slightest means of objectively identifying or eliminating the bias in others so repeatedly claimed.Look at this phrase: My claim is not false and misleading, it is according to common sense logical deduction in positive investigation of raised evidence. Not a jot of detail to indicate what the logical deduction is! But as a logical deduction this should be easy enough to do!Then there's the hilarious reference to "my crime lab." Maybe it's hidden in the basement like Dexter's laboratory in the cartoon? It's just as believable. Looks like we have another here trying to impress us with some claimed, but otherwise undetectable, special skill in handling evidence or argument.And finally we read 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. Well it should be easy enough to demonstrate these assumptions at work, with clear examples from the literature and carefully spelled out deductions. I don't think we'll be seeing many of these however. I expect just another spate of unsupported assertions about "underlying assumptions."If you think back to the original topic of this thread - how does creationism explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation - you will see Phospho's problem and why they have to take this tack. Nothing could be based on a grander assumption than creationism, precisely because it posits a process which is by definition beyond the limits of natural science. Creationism has to assume the existence of god, assume his creative power and assume the truth of the Biblical account.As every choolchild learns, the easiest (if most cowardly) way of diverting attention from your own failings, is to loudly accuse another of the very same thing.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-12-2003]