The Origin of Novelty

It is only in the evolution/old earth stuff that you can't PROVE things, but that is NOT true for the hard sciences, where if you couldn't prove them you couldn't expect satellites to orbit the earth or send rockets to distant planets or expect results from medical breakthroughs or design any of the useful scientific equipment you all use or even invent a vacuum cleaner or a computer and so on and so forth. Even there I get your pedantic prissy little point that since new and better knowledge is always coming along it's still better not to use the word "proof" but that IS a pedantic prissy little point. In the normal sense I'm using the word it's only the sciences that deal with the prehistoric past that you cannot prove in the sense I was using the word.So you've got asteroid impact producing the iridium layer, where have I denied that? I figure it occurred during the Flood myself, which transported the stuff throughout the world, but certainly the evidence does seem to point to an asteroid hit at a particular point in the building up of the strata.In the case of criminal forensics what you guys always ignore in your zeal to connect it with old earth stuff is that you have multiple lines of actual observable evidence in the PRESENT to lead you to your hypotheses, which is NOT the case with the prehistoric past where all you have is hypotheses stacked on hypotheses. The criminal investigator has actually SEEN with his own two eyes many many instances of this or that kind of evidence that he can put together in new ways to solve a new case. THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH OLD EARTH "SCIENCE."And I also have not invoked Intelligent Design in this discussion. Stick to the actual argument.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't see any logic in that line of reasoning. If there was an intelligent designer, and He did create all life-forms 6500 years ago, there is nothing in the observance of phenotypes or genotypes that contradicts this view.

---

The reasoning seems clear. If there were indeed numerous separate creations, as you claim, we should expect to see clear boundaries between them. That we do not, at all, is therefore evidence against the idea of numerous separate creations.I also note that you implicitly claim that absolute logical proof is needed to reject your opinions. Can you explain why we should hold your opinions in such high regard ?

quote:

---

It only makes sense that a baramin and subsequent evolution would show groups of species very closely related genetically (eg dogs/wolves) with minimal mutations separating them. This is generally observed, this points to the baramin concept.

---

But that argument only applies WITHIN a baramin. We are looking at the distinctions BETWEEN baramins. By equating the two you are implicitly admitting that the evidence is against the existence of distinct baramins.

Well its possible that God made two organisms genetically similar. so the requirement that intelligent design requires the same level of diversity between each baramin is as logical as requiring car manufacturers to have an evenly spread diversity between each car. They make them in "ranges", the 4x4 range etc, and then occasionally produce unique prodcuts that don't fit into any range (ie an electric car). Sometimes they make two nearly identical (different paint work).The fact that the observance of many modern organisms are grouped into small phylogenetic trees of recent divergence points towards recent baramins. It doesn't prove recent baramins, but it certainly points to it. If anyone wishes to refute anyone's else's view, surely logical proof or some evidence is the criteria? If a view can be shown to be more statistically likely, this would also make a good point, even if not fully refuting mine, statistical probability does add strength to an argument.

quote:

---

Well its possible that God made two organisms genetically similar. so the requirement that intelligent design requires the same level of diversity between each baramin is as logical as requiring car manufacturers to have an evenly spread diversity between each car

---

Thats a bit of a strawman, though. I'm not asking for equal distance, or even a criterion that divides all baramins. I just think that there should be enough clearly distinct baramins to tell that they actually exist.

quote:

---

The fact that the observance of many modern organisms are grouped into small phylogenetic trees of recent divergence points towards recent baramins. It doesn't prove recent baramins, but it certainly points to it.

---

The argument seems to be: "The fact that closely related creatures are closely related points to the absence of more distant relations". That's obviously wrong.

quote:

---

If anyone wishes to refute anyone's else's view, surely logical proof or some evidence is the criteria?

---

So you agree that you are wrong to demand logical disproof - evidence is sufficient.

I think there should be enough distinctions in the genome to show they are evolving rather than merely slight changes to baramins 6500 years ago. Where's your distinctive evidence that shows this evolving rather than baramins?That's my point , that evolution is assumptions based on the observance of slightly evolved baramins, and nothing has been forthcoming to the contrary in this thread. I appreciate you trying to do the same back to me, but we both end up on the same boat. Evolutionists do not seem to realise their empirical status is the same as creationists at the moment, you have nothing except circular reasoning to support your position. i think you misunderstood me. My argument is that the observation that many species recently went through a divergence into sub-species, suddenly and rapidly introducing a wide variety of sub-species never before seen in the fossil record, and showing clear phylogenetic trees of this divergence with minimal mutations, points towards recent baramins. Some evidence is not enough for proof, but it certainly helps your position. If you want to disprove me, then I'm right to demand proof. (am I stating the obvious here?)I don't really know where you are going with this discussion of evidence, I think we will all know when you have a strong enough point to put creationists in a corner, I'm waiting, go for it.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think there should be enough distinctions in the genome to show they are evolving rather than merely slight changes to baramins 6500 years ago. Where's your distinctive evidence that shows this evolving rather than baramins?

---

As I keep pointing out, the absence of any clear evidence of any separate baramins is evidence that there aren't any.

quote:

---

That's my point , that evolution is assumptions based on the observance of slightly evolved baramins, and nothing has been forthcoming to the contrary in this thread. I appreciate you trying to do the same back to me, but we both end up on the same boat. Evolutionists do not seem to realise their empirical status is the same as creationists at the moment, you have nothing except circular reasoning to support your position.

---

Of course the fossil record is strong evidence against you, encompassing both the age of life and the numerous transitional fossils.

quote:

---

i think you misunderstood me. My argument is that the observation that many species recently went through a divergence into sub-species, suddenly and rapidly introducing a wide variety of sub-species never before seen in the fossil record, and showing clear phylogenetic trees of this divergence with minimal mutations, points towards recent baramins.

---

I'm not seeing anything different from what I said there. What's the evidence for distinct baramins ? Please be explicit and point to specific examples.

LOL! If I had that, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we. It would be world news and the creation/evolution debate would be over. The same as with evolutionists, if you had enough evidence to squash the debate, present it and let's get it over with. Circular reasoning is just silly.My point is that evolution currently has no empirical advantage over the concept that we are recently evolved from baramins. Neither Bluejays simplicity argument, Bluegenes novel genes argument, Taq's fossil argument (admittedly we haven't delved into that yet), the current observation of genomes.There is just no support for the "common ancestor" view over the baramin view. Trying to put the ball into my court merely highlights to any impartial observer the lack of support for your view.

I don't use the baramin terminology, simply never became familiar with it, but I get that it refers to the same class of things, also called Kinds, that microevolve within their own gene pools, which are considered to belong only to that class and are genetically unrelated to other baramins, Kinds or Species or whatever the terminology is that works best. (If the term "baramin' is useful to keep from this sort of confusion I should learn to use it I suppose.)In any case I see that the usual question gets asked about this that all creationists encounter: Where is the dividing line between the baramins or Kinds, or where is the stopping point beyond which further evolution cannot occur.My own argument is that because reduced genetic diversity MUST accompany the development of new varieties or breeds (within the Kind or baramin) there is a natural point beyond which further variation or "evolution" cannot occur and that is your stopping point or boundary that defines the Kind or baramin. I call this Evolution Defeats Evolution. That is, the very processes that bring about new phenotypes also yultimately lead to genetic depletion for a given line of true breed, which makes further evolution impossible when that point is reached.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

LOL! If I had that, we wouldn't be having this discussion would we. It would be world news and the creation/evolution debate would be over. The same as with evolutionists, if you had enough evidence to squash the debate, present it and let's get it over with. Circular reasoning is just silly.

---

If that's the response you give when asked to explain your argument, then it's pretty obvious that you never had a real argument.

quote:

---

My point is that evolution currently has no empirical advantage over the concept that we are recently evolved from baramins. Neither Bluejays simplicity argument, Bluegenes novel genes argument, Taq's fossil argument (admittedly we haven't delved into that yet), the current observation of genomes.

---

But, as we've seen that isn't true. You can't explain life older than 6500 years, the existence of transitional fossils nor the absence of clear geneitic gaps between baramins with your hypothesis but evolution explains all of them easily.

quote:

---

There is just no support for the "common ancestor" view over the baramin view. Trying to put the ball into my court merely highlights to any impartial observer the lack of support for your view.

---

The fact that you're reduced to denying the very existence of the evidence I've pointed out is pretty clear evidence that you can't answer it.

In science this debate has been over for 150 years.Only a very small percentage of religious 'scientists' pretend that this debate is still occurring in science.That small percentage of 'scientists' do the 'debate' in things like churches and mosques and on the net. Not in any scientific organisation, where scientific debates belong.The debate has been won a very, very long time ago. Evolution won.Edited by Pressie, : Added paragraphEdited by Pressie, : Changed lots of sentencesEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I saw a great documentary on the Galapagos islands last night.

Yes, nature DOES isolate itself if reproductive isolation in its many forms is what mindspawn was referring to. The development of species peculiar to the Galapagos is one example of this. Ring species are a good other example. The CAUSE of the development of different varieties IS reproductive isolation, which can occur because of geographic barriers such as isolation on an island, or isolation because of distance between groups on one large area of land, or mating habits among a group in one area and so on and so forth. It can also occur because of natural selection's eliminating a particular phenotype. This occurs in nature all the time but it is most dramatically demonstrable in domestic selection which has created so many strikingly different breeds of all kinds of animals.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Each time you say this I ask if he destroyed his creation 2,000 years later because this has significant evolutionary consequences, but each time I get no answer. Would you like to answer it now?

There was another one on those Lemurs in Madagascar on the National Geographic Channel about two weeks ago, too.

I couldn't find where New Scientist was the origin of the quote provided by Bolder-Dash. I found the quote at many sites, but not there.Also, about the negative comments about New Scientist, are you possibly thinking of some other magazine? It has its flaws, but I don't think they have any "stuffed-ego, lying, creationist shills" on staff.