The Origin of Novelty

True. You say my theory doesn't fit what we see in genomes. I believe it fits perfectly. I need more evidence than just a flat statement.Regarding archaeology and early human races, my model has some races spreading out from Turkey about 4500 years ago, and then a mass exodus of various race groups spreading out from Iraq about 4200 years ago. Concerning archaeological dates, I prefer Rohl's revised chronology on ancient civilizations, that is far more accurate than the standard chronology. This mass exodus would have been far more technologically advanced than the primitive people's it faced during the mass exodus. The skeletal structures of the original people's would most likely have reflected a meat eating low nutrition diet, strong jawlines, signs of malnutrition in the stance. Referring particularly to Neanderthals, these did interbreed with the following population, showing how closely the chromosomal organization matched between the races, not quite separate species, but in fact the same species proven through the Neanderthal DNA being preserved within most populations of today. Which is a better answer:
"I've got no idea"
"God did it"
Those who tend toward religion would think that those without an explanation are more illogical, those that tend towards seeing God as illogical would obviously see the God explanation as illogical. But that is subjective thinking, unless you have better evidence than the following comment of yours, the two theories should be treated equally: Well that is what abiogenesis looks like to creationists, seriously, its like huh duh, we have no idea but we far more intelligent than you guys who actually believe in a God!Its all subjective reasoning. Until you have a better explanation for abiogenesis, creationism as a starting point looks just as good to the unbiased reader. Its only years of indoctrination that creationism is stupid, based on the circular reasoning of evolution, that would even bring one to be so sure of themselves with so little evidence. Believe me, I am not here to exchange subjective insults, but if you are associating my belief in God with fairytales, the same finger is pointing straight back at you with the unknown process of abiogenesis of which many evolutionists have complete religious faith in. To the point of insulting other's religions based on their own beliefs without evidence. (confidence in a belief without evidence is called faith - fairytales - the religion of abiogenesis) I was just saying that the original species could have had the duplicates, the sub-species had the deletion. Each study must be looked at according to its own merits.

Without any evidence in favor of God doing it, the first. 'Cos of being true. Well, most things aren't done by God.Let us suppose that God exists and is known to exist, and is omnipotent.Then I tell you that last week I lost my spectacles.How highly would you rate the possibility that God did a miracle to make them vanish?Even granting the existence of God, which is the better explanation for the disappearance of my spectacles? The answer "I've got no idea" is definitely better than "God did it", because the first answer is 100% incontrovertibly true. I do have no idea. If I maintained the same degree of certainty that "God did it", you'd think I'd gone off my head, wouldn't you?

Right, so did it all get wiped out a couple of thousand years later by the flood too?

For one thing, there's too much variation within species for the time scale, unless you're proposing the creation of large groups of each species. And your last sentence isn't true, because "god did it" is a flat statement unsupported by any evidence. How did these "races" come about? How does the first 200 generations produce "races"? Even more races! We were blessed with rapid diversificatoin. In which area of the world, if any, would your model predict the greatest genetic diversity amongst humans? It seems to be Turkey or the Middle-east in general. I ask, because if one area has had a large population for a long time, and populations in other areas descend from smaller founding populations later on, then the most genetic diversity should be in the former. If you have some ideas (as is the case with abiogenesis) then neither. If you don't have any ideas, then the first is clearly correct and honest. An unsupported hypothesis like "fairies did it" is not in any way equal to a supported hypothesis like "pairs of genes that look like the product of the known process of gene duplication are paralogs."If we see something that looks like a frog, the best explanation is that's it's a frog, and grew from a tadpole in the established way, although you can't build a time machine and conclusively prove the point. In your way of thinking, the claim that it is actually a Prince transformed into an apparent frog by a wicked witch deserves equal consideration.In relation to abiogenesis, I repeat, the evidence that natural chemical processes can create chemical phenomena is infinitely greater than the evidence of supernatural beings doing chemistry on this planet. That's because those natural processes go on all the time, but there is not one single established example of a supernatural being doing anything, let alone chemistry. What "original species"? Of course you could have a duplication that goes to fixation in a species, and a descendant species that has a deletion. But what has that got to do with anything? You identify paralogs because they look like duplicates. See the frog and the Prince above.

But does it seem a better assumption that God ortely performed millions of Spontaneous Generations, one for each current species and one for every extinct organism that ever lived?And, HOW god may have used His own natural laws to do the job does NOT deny Him in anyway, does it?

For Neanderthals, yes, the whole world and their visions and names for the animals disappeared forever.
After a 100,000 years as the dominant anumal on Earth which had the opportunity to describe that world in humanoid terms, they declined and disappeared as the Modern Homo spaiens "flooded" the whole earth to the mountain tops in replacing them and the ir entire world view, especially the names and visions of the animals they would hunt.

Hi, Mindspawn.I've only briefly skimmed what other posters have written, because I'm trying to budget my procrastination of work; so, figure me if my responses are somewhat redundant to what you've seen elsewhere. Well, they wouldn't be on equal footing, because of the principle of parsimony. The rule in science is that, every time you propose a new mechanism, you need new evidence to defend it. So, since your hypothesis includes all the basic mechanisms of the evolution hypothesis, plus one more, it needs all the evidence of the evolution hypothesis, plus "one more." If that "plus one" evidence doesn't exist, then we are not justified in adding the extra mechanism, and we fall back on the basic ToE as our "default" position.----- Fair enough, but this effectively robs you of an opportunity to make a unique prediction that would distinguish your hypothesis from the hypothesis of evolution.Still, perhaps you could make some predictions from this. I don't know much about cars, but there was a time in my young life when I really liked World War II airplanes, so I'm going to use that as a parallel to your example.There was an engine called the Rolls Royce Merlin, that was supposed to be one of the best engines for prop-driven aircraft in the 30's and 40's. This same engine (with something like 6-7 variants) was used on many British aircraft, including the famous fighter airplanes like the Hurricane and the Spitfire, and the Avro Lancaster, a four-engined heavy bomber.Some American manufacturers were even able to make a variant of the Merlin under license to use in American fighters, like the Mustang. However, early versions of the Mustang used Allison engines, which had been previously been used in other fighter designs, like the two-engined P-38 Lightning.So, if we're using a "manufacturer" metaphor, then I would predict a "mixing and matching" pattern, like with the airplane engines. A designer should have no problem putting disparate parts together to create each baramin, and, indeed, this would probably be the best way to design animals to prior specifications.So, do we see evidence of this kind of "mixing and matching" dynamic in the diversity of life?----- I wonder if we could cleanly divide the diversity of life this way. I suspect we will find many cases in which a group of organisms clearly looks like it underwent a pattern of "microevolution" via gene deletions and point mutations, except that one member, nestled deep within this pattern, has a gene addition. Thus, that one "member" would be a different baramin, despite nestling deep within what would otherwise look like a "perfect" baramin.

What do you mean by "too much variation". Which particular groupings of organisms do you feel show "too much variation" and why do you say so? I don't see why there would be any limitations. In Southern Africa the African races shown a lightening of the skin compared to equatorial regions, this is found on both the east and west coasts. Equatorial race groups show darker skins even if their haplotypes indicate completely different race groups to each other, and yet similar race groups to their own lighter skinned neighbours. Have you got any data why these processes would have to take many thousands of years? lol, you really are living in a fantasy world. Have they really found evidence for natural abiogenesis? And aliens stole my grandmother.Its fairytale statements like this that makes your average logical thinker doubt evolution. Stick to "I don't know" than projecting your "natural chemical processes" onto the sudden creation of biological life from natural chemicals. You will sound more logical to the neutral observer. Unless you have got evidence for natural chemical processes creating life? Then just present it. I would like to see a study that proves certain genes are paralogs. Could you present one?

Its one less principle , not one more. Creation does not require a complexity adding process, which evolution requires. Which is fine if evolution had evidence for it, but what evidence is there for additional coding genes being added to the genome over time, so that something like a prokaryote (1000 protein coding genes) can evolve into a human (21000 protein-coding genes)?Creationism is generally a more parsimonious view of biology than evolution. I believe this mix and matching is observed:
PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company Of course evolutionists give evolutionary explanations for this matching design in two organisms supposed to have diverted half a billion years ago. However as you have already indicated, this is exactly what we would be looking for if indeed there was an intelligent designer. If you are aware of such an instance of increased rather than decreased complexity involving new additional coding genes, I would be very keen to see it. Its not that it would threaten creationism, I feel it would just add some support for the theory of evolution as an explanation for modern life-forms, support that is currently lacking.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I say let the scientific evidence speak for itself. Seriously abiogenesis is not a satisfactory explanation to most logical minds. Just because of this, there should be more time spent on the "baramin" view as opposed to the "common ancestor" view (thanks to Bluejay for introducing me to the correct terminology). No it doesn't deny him, accepted, but even so it does contradict the literalness of the bible. I'm seriously looking for evidence for complexity over time, reducing complexity is proven which points more towards creationism than evolution, even though it is also regarded as an evolutionary process.

I see I left out this question. Yes, the bible predicts that the Middle East should show the widest genetic diversity. This is borne out by world haplotype distribution.http://blog.kodai-bunmei.net/...ogroups-1500AD-World-Map.pngEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Many. Primates, for example. You were talking about different "races" moving out of Turkey. In 2000 years, they'd have the about same diversity that the Irish have developed over the last 2000 years. How many races would you describe the Irish as? And stone age people here are in modern European haplogroups. Shouldn't all stone age people everywhere be closely related to each other in your model? I said that there's infinitely more evidence for natural chemical processes taking place on this planet than there is for supernatural beings making things here. It's a statement of fact. You can see the former every day, and no-one has ever established an example of the latter. You're the one who's suggesting that a magical being can create fake paralogs. It is your idea to bring in magic as a supposed refutation of the examples of neofunctionalization in duplicates that I presented on the peanut thread. You suggest that they could have been created by a magical being. It's your fairy tale. If you can't support it, you have to agree that apparent paralogs are paralogs, not fairy creations, just as you should agree that apparent frogs are frogs, not magicked princes. What other than natural processes do we have evidence for? When are you going to establish the existence of the supernatural? If you can't, 100% of the evidence is on my side.

I'm not claiming all primates are from one common ancestor. That's evolution's claim. The haplogroups themselves explain it all. The genetic diversity was there in the Middle East. Then mankind lost diversity as we spread out from there.I don't know why you think that all stone age people should be related? I didn't say anything about fake paralogs, and I didn't realise your evidence was sitting in the peanut gallery thread, could you kindly post it here. Associating the observance of some chemical processes with the sudden appearance of biological life is just ridiculous. Unfortunately for your argument, its pretty obvious that you are clutching at straws. I was expecting a more civil discussion about evidence for coding genes, instead we are being distracted by side issues.To the outside observer, both of us are claiming my pet theory is better than yours. Its a subjective argument, let's just move on from there.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You see, if the flood wiped out pretty much all life about 2,000 years after the miracle 6,500 years ago - then we've only got 4,500 years to play with. Just a detail.

No. That map tells us interesting things about migration, but not overall genetic diversity. If it were demonstrated that the highest level of diversity was not in the Middle East, would you consider your model (and the Bilble!!!!!) falsified?You may have guessed that I originally asked the question for a reason.In relation to haplogroups, your clue as to where the most genetic diversity should be is where the oldest in the nested hierarchy of haplotypes are found.Oops!Try a new model and new scriptures.