Biological classification vs 'Kind'

You're reaching conclusions based on "the evidence I've reviewed" when you've clearly reviewed far too little evidence to be reaching any conclusions. Also, often when pressed about your evidence you respond that such and such is just a hypothesis at this point.Mostly what you've got at this point is Genesis and hope. Are you sure that's the right reference? Only the abstract is available to non-subscribers of Science, and the abstract says nothing about redundancy. What I was questioning in your statement was that there was ever a prediction about the prevalence of gene duplication, let alone a revision downward. I think you've been misinformed. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that predicts that bacteria should require a great deal of time to evolve. What evolution predicts is that imperfect reproduction will cause genetic changes to accumulate over time. The shorter the generations the faster genetic changes can accumulate. Let's say one of your descendants a billion years from now were to ask, "Why did it take a billion years to get from Bob to me? If evolution is true, why wasn't I produced a long time ago?" What would you answer?Maybe you want to rephrase your question? Using the link you provided, please read your reference and then post a message explaining how transposons support Borger's hypothesis that the VIGE ancestors of these transposons directed the course of evolution, as opposed to selection based upon the environment. It must be true that environmentally influenced selection could not have been a factor because with accelerated evolution the environment could not have been rapidly changing at the same time. Or did ancient historians not only fail to note the rapid changes in the local flora and fauna, but also that one year they were living in a forest, the next in a desert, and the next in a tundra.And of course the geological contradictions of how animals that evolved and went extinct since the flood came to be deeply buried beneath miles (in some cases) of sediment is off-topic in this thread.--Percy

Hi Bob,The kind of post I had in mind was one you posted shortly after mine, Message 297: So if creationists find evidence of a global flood 4350 years ago we're entitled to respond, "Gee, they found exactly what they set out to find!"Or should we perhaps examine the actual evidence and address that.Most of my posts leading up to my Message 291 were attempting to get you to notice your tendency to give short shrift to evidence and rather long shrift to unevidenced hypotheses. That context was apparently not obvious and gave the wrong impression, sorry about that.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Oh, is that what "Homo holobaramin" means? Human? I didn't realize you were claiming that YEC scientists had predicted Neanderthals were human. So this would be a great example of the application of baraminology. How did they apply the principles of baraminology (which you have yet to describe, so this would be a great opportunity) to make this prediction?By the way, the genetic analyses that indicate cross breeding between Neaderthals and humans (the criteria you're using to decide they were human) also indicate that the two lineages split about 500,000 years ago. So you think scientists are 1000 times off on some things but can be trusted on the rest? What criteria are YEC's applying to make these vastly different assessments of reliability of data from these closely related studies? Sure you can, right here: The Human GenusYou misunderstood John Woodmorappe's description of the article. The article argued that Home egaster *does* belong in the genus Homo, while other lineages like Homo habilis do not. It wasn't arguing that Homo egaster should be reclassified as Homo sapiens.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.