The Origin of Novelty

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.

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.

What a great scientific answer. If insults were a sign of intelligence I would rate you a genius. Oh wait, any pre-school kid knows how to give insults, so it doesn't demonstrate any intelligence at all. So why would you want to hand out insults if it demonstrates your lack of ability to be mature? Are you showing off to the moderators? What's the motive?

Oh really? Well then just present your evidence of where any part of DNA would favor evolution over 600 million years over creation and some minor evolution over 6500 years. I have been asking this quite a few times in this thread, and not even a weak attempt to answer this. If this thread is full of those who intelligently represent evolution, then surely you guys can come up with SOME evidence in the DNA itself, where it looks like a 600 million year process of being evolved. You see my faith is 100% sure on creationsim, but I acknowledge that empirically the evidence is currently about 50/50 for both views. I don't pretend that biological evidence currently strongly favors creationism and don't feel obliged to show that.HOWEVER you evolutionists believe that biological evidence strongly favors evolution, then its up to you to show it. Without showing it, and by putting the ball back in my court every time, you are indicating to the impartial observer that its more like a 50/50 situation, which is what I am saying. I believe the proven nested hierarchies that show limited evolution from a very recent common ancestor puts the evidence slightly in favor of the baramin concept. ok you are referring to radiometric dating now, which isn't appropriate to this thread. I can explain so-called old fossils. They are young. Radiometric dating has flaws.I've already explained the absence of clear genetic gaps, I believe there are nearly always clear genetic gaps. But grey areas are possible under the baramin view and would still fit into creationism, but hoping you can actually point out an example of a grey area.Evolution shows a LACK of significant transitional fossils. Its a weakness, not a strength of evolution. The clear nested hierarchies are once again, small changes from a common ancestor of the same era. This points to baramins. The so-called transitional fossils between the main animal kingdoms and major phyla , which is the extreme claim of evolution, is lacking. I've seen nothing significant, every point of yours I've answered clearly and logically. If there is anything I've missed, kindly point it out and I will deal with it again.

There was nothing implicit in anything I said that would point to God fooling people. the fact that you are resorting to such weak arguments once again reveals the weakness of your position.In what manner would the creation of two highly similar species be deliberately fooling people into seeing relationships? An intelligent designer would design organisms in groupings, just as car designers do. Entire ranges of designs are suitable for certain conditions and would have similarities to eachother in a grouping or range. This is not deception or "fooling" in any manner, and I find your interpretation of my position lacking any logic whatsoever. I don't believe its difficult to define baramins, as long as extensive genome sequencing has been done, refer to humans/chimps. genome.gov describes the differences in this manner, emphasis on the fact that only 29% of the genes match regarding coding for proteins. These are very obviously separate baramins because of the vast gulf between the two:
http://www.genome.gov/15515096
The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humansI really do believe that baramins could be very clearly defined in future as genome sequencing advances, but in theory, its possible for there to be one or two instances of close matches that are grey areas. The occasional grey area would not threaten the view of baramins in any manner whatsoever, I don't see why you are insisting that grey areas would somehow discredit a view.

Do you realize this is kindergarten debating. My response that I have already made to this point you are making repeatedly is that neither does evolution have any evidence of 600 million years as opposed to 6500 years of evolving evidenced in the genome. So the same finger is pointing back at you. But I have said this already, and yet you are repeating the same point. Thanks for posting this, could you kindly give me a link so that I can look into your claims, thanks. Even if you are right about radiometric dating and other dating methods, which you are not, even so timeframes are not a good enough reason to favor evolution over baramins. A chimp and human match protein coding by only 29%. http://www.genome.gov/15515096 So humans and chimps are obviously not baramins, with their small 29% match. I believe a 99.5 percent match would possibly be a good indication of baramins. IF you have any evidence to the contrary I would like to see it, and maybe I could adjust that percentage to a better level. Under the creationist/baramin view, there has not been enough time for any significant genome evolution in the last 6500 years, and so any significant differences in genomes represents different baramins. There can however be vast phenotype differences, but to define baramins we have to look at genotypes not phenotypes.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

LOL!! Do some exceptions in sexual identity (eg hermaphrodites) mean there is no such thing as male and female? Do some possible theoretical grey areas in defining baramins necessarily mean there are no baramins?That line of reasoning is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, but the line of reasoning is stupid, I am expecting you to never back down on this point, but your reasoning lacks any validity whatsoever). Lol, that list is a perfect illustration of design groupings. Similar organisms with similar habits/phenotypes/genotypes will require similar breathing abilities. To me its a perfect example of design similarities, just as you may interpret the evidence as an example of evolved similarities. There is nothing there that even vaguely contradicts the similarities you would expect a designer to place in similar organisms. That is true. I will be going back to the Dates and Dating thread soon to deal with the dating fallacies demonstrated there. There would need to be about 2000 mutations per generation to even get to a half percent variation in base pairs over 6500 years. Not even the most excessive estimations of mutation rates would predict that type of variation per generation. So my 99.5% is a pretty safe definition of a baramin if it so clearly separates two organisms famous for their similarity.The fact that there are only at most about 30 point mutations per generation , and yet the difference in base pairs between the chimp and human is about 4% (120 million base pair differences) means that there needs to be about 2 million generations since our common ancestor. At a conservative breeding generation of 10 years , this means that there needs to be 20 MILLION years since the common ancestor split. (evolutionists claim about 6 million years). The joke about this set of figures, is that it works on the assumption that most point mutation of the 30 mutations per generation are beneficial and have become useful parts of both genomes. The reality is that there just has not been enough time for evolution to work, the chimp and human need a lot longer than 20 million years at current beneficial mutations rates to account for the useful differences of the 120 million differences between the two genomes.This is a strong point favoring baramins over evolution. Mere differences? They certainly are good enough to determine baramins and are a clear genetic gap, why are you unsatisfied with that measurement?Its pretty easily defined. Humans are one baramin. The genus canis is another baramin. The genus felidae is another baramin. (Obviously only where the genomes in that genus are closely matching, its possible taxonomists have wrongly categorized some species within a genus). Genomes have to be completely sequenced and completely compared across base pairs like the chimpanzee and human , before we can make any accurate conclusions.

You make bold statements , but in what manner is the intelligent design view of cytochrome c sequences more unlikely than the common descent view. Kindly enlighten me with some evidence for your point please. Explain to me how these sequences show common descent more than groupings according to intelligent design for organisms that have similar needs. The amazing thing about these sequences is that although many of these organisms have supposedly evolved separately for over 300 million years, they ALL have a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at position 18, a proline at position 30 and a methionine at position 80. This positively SCREAMS intelligent design , the concept of all these completely different organisms maintaining these exact positions over 300 million years of evolving compared to 6500 years of evolving is ridiculous and I will be using this study as evidence for baramins from now on.
view.http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html You say this is not a good line of evidence. I agree with you because I was not presenting this as evidence. I was explaining the reasoning why a 99.5 percent similarity would be a logical test for baramins according to the 6500 year view. If you look at my figures, I definitely included the thinking that differences accumulate in both lineages. The figure without taking into account the two lineages would be 40 million. If you checked my math you would have seen I used the figure 20 million years instead of 40 million years to take the mutations in both lineages into account.Regarding current rates of multiple base mutations and point mutations, have you got any backing for the average ~100 plus base point differences that would have had to accumulate over EVERY generation over the last 600 000 generations over the last 6 million years? I've done this, I don't know what more you want. I explained why I used the .5% difference, this is based on 6500 years of mutations unlikely to ever produce more than a .5% genotype difference within the same baramin. For example the genus canus shows huge similarities in genome sequencing between species, greater than 99.5 percent. This shows that even though there are a few species (wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingoes) and some cannot interbreed and large varieties in phenotype are observable, these are all from one baramin, due to the extreme genotype similarities. As opposed to , for example, the Tasmanian wolf that has a similar phenotype to the genus canus but large genotype differences (more than .5% difference) and is therefore from a different baramin to dogs/wolves. This % is not arbitrary, even if its possible to be further refined.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I think the mistake often made in the creationist/evolution debate is in the terminology itself. There should be two separate debates, the abiogenesis/creationist debate; and then the baramin/common ancestor debate. Each party's view on the first debate on where life came from is unproven and is based on faith without evidence. (a sense of certainty when the scientific evidence is lacking). These arguments are subjective , get nowhere, and normally result in trading insults and stirring (eg its often said that atheists or alternatively creationists are living in a fairytale world)If we stick to comparing what happened since life appeared, and compare the recent baramin view to the lengthy common ancestor view, with consensus on most currently observed evolutionary processes I don't see how the theory on baramins has any extra unevidenced processes compared to the theory of a common ancestor.
I feel the weakness of the common ancestor view is the lack of evidence for additional coding genes being added to genomes over time, this favors devolution from baramins, rather then increased protein-coding complexity over time as proposed by the common ancestor view. So in essence the common ancestor view has an extra process that is difficult to find evidence for, the theory of a single common ancestor over long timeframes therefore lacks parsimony compared to the baramin view. The baramin view clearly fits all available evidence, complex organisms showing recent divergence and minor speciation. Its simple, and its processes are proven and observable. You seem to be projecting unnecessary detail onto intelligent design.There is a general rule (maybe some exceptions) that placental animals require a higher degree of social behaviour. This is due to the fact that the pregnant mother is vulnerable. The mother/offspring bond is stronger, the nurturing is longer, the brain is bigger. These placental animals are highly adaptable, because new behaviour patterns can be passed onto offspring with training, for example feeding patterns are not 100 percent instinct , due to the interest the placental mother takes in the well being of the offspring. this interest is due to maternal bonds having formed in the womb. Thus intelligent design divides groups of organisms into matching groups of traits, the traits complement one another, and the traits come in matching sets. Although there are some strange organisms out there, generally they are divided into clear groupings of features, very much like car manufacturers make vehicles in "ranges". The 4x4 range, the family car range, the sports car range. It makes no sense to place a 4x4 chassis in a family car, or sports car speeds of over 150 mph in a 4x4. This is uneconomical waste, and the same type of rules apply to intelligent design in biology, no wastage and sets of features come in groupings that make sense. On the other hand there can be some features that are relatively common as evidenced by the following study being discussed on this thread: http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html
Across many organisms ranging from plants to mammals to bacteria to fish, in similar sequences you always find that there is "a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80"Since a lot of these organisms supposedly split some 300 million years ago or more, what are the chances of them retaining their perfect relative positions for 300 million years? Of course evolutionists do have an explanation but intelligent design certainly appears more realistic (not expecting you to agree, but its an interesting thought what an impartial observer would see in these widespread matching sequences)

LOL - sweeping statements are not evidence. This isnt just highly conserved, this is exactly conserved over 300 million years... interesting. When relating nested trees to fossils unfortunately there is a lack of supporting evidence. Nested trees can be obvious when genetically based on recent species of which DNA is available. Other than this, there is rarely any examples of a correctly dated sequence of fossils. ie there should be a series of transitional fossils showing slight phenotype changes, but also showing radiometric dating in the same sequence. Without this dating confirmation, nested hierarchies are mental projections based on ordering extinct species into time sequences that do not necessarily exist. IT is easy to put a cat fossil next to a wildcat fossil, next to a cheetah fossil next to a tiger fossil and show how cats grew in size over time. But if all the fossils were concurrent then you would be wasting your time on a fantasy sequence, all those species could have been simultaneously alive. So you require dated sequences to add some empirical value to your sequence.And I can confidently predict that any dated sequence of transitional fossils will show rapid evolution from a baramin, with no specific transitional sequences ever found between the kingdoms, or between the major phyla.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Morphology is not clear cut. ie if eagles and falcons were extinct and an eagle fossil is found under a falcon fossil, this does not mean that the eagle evolved from the falcon. An evolutionist, always looking for transitional fossils, would too easily make that logic jump between two separate fossils based on their closely matching morphology. they could so easily be wrong, they could just as easily be looking at two separate species rather than a sequence. Taxonomists have to work with what they have, and it takes too many assumptions to be an exact science. ??You do see a separate tree for each baramin. Genome sequencing supports the baramin concept, just look at the similarities among the genotypes of dogs/wolves. And yet the vast differences between chimpanzees/humans. The tree relating to dogs and wolves shows a neat progression, radiating out from specific areas across the globe. The so-called chimpanzee/human tree shows no such relationship, they are unique species, separate baramins. with far too many genetic differences (120 million base pairs) to have occurred in their so-called 6 million years of divergence from each other. Unless you can show how mammals do actually conserve 100 base pair changes per generation. In the eyes of evolutionists there is a sequence. Its just very funny that taxonomists could be ordering a set of fish into an elaborate order when they could have all been swimming around at the same time. The fact that you feel you don't need a date sequence is illogical. Of course you need a date sequence, its a logical demand, not unreasonable at all. I don't know on what grounds you feel taxonomists are infallible, it is not an exact science. Which shows you completely misunderstand my position. I would appreciate it if you tried a little harder. Maybe if you didn't post so quickly you would understand what I mean.

LOL, unless you want to discuss the relative merits of abiogenesis compared to creation, let's just stick to evolution. But I already said this, yet you for some reason you are still choosing to focus on the source of baramins, bringing that subjective argument right back into the equation. Either reality is a reflection of baramins plus minor evolution, or a common ancestor plus major evolution, this is our discussion. Both theories explain all life. Both have empirically subjective beginnings. The fact that I'm repeating myself and yet you still making statements like "diversity among baramins is left unexplained" is a mystery because you did seem to understand my placing the two sources of origins on equal footing for argument sake, and yet you are still trying to bring creation back into the debate as a less objective source for life. I believe abiogenesis is ridiculously illogical. Its like expecting a rockfall to build a perfect castle. That's a bit subjective, that's like saying its illogical that of all the millions of cars manufactured, why didn't at least one design have a really strong truck chassis on a fast sports car. Some things just do not go well together, and never will, I do not find your argument appealing to my sense of logic at all. We are assuming the intelligent designer is intelligent after all, why then would you require that he has to place together illogical combinations? Your point is not making sense, and you have made this point more than once. Hoping that you could just drop this line of reasoning. This is what genome sequencing shows. I have given two links so far regarding this. There are strong matching sequences between similar species, and some matching sequences are found among completely different species as in the coral example and the cytochrome-C example. So the mix and match has just been shown to you, and then this is your reply?But even though I have given evidence for mixing, it would not be as common as your example, because biological life is far more diverse than military aircraft which makes your example somewhat irrelevant. Maybe a better comparison is between all forms of transport and biological life. Some would not even share pistons, because some are electrical, some run off jet fuel. Diesel system as opposed to petrol. The basics would show some similarities (screws, metal plates, seats) just like biological life has sequences of DNA. To expect any further similarities just isn't a logical requirement, God is more creative than being bound by repetition, although some repetition between similar designs is logical.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You say that evolution should expect an overall pattern of a nested tree, but there is no overall pattern of a nested tree, that is the fault of your reasoning. The tree is assumed. Both evolution and baraminology would show recent genome traced nested trees, this is observed. Now you are referring to the canines as an anomaly. These recent divergences are commonly observed among nearly all species and is a fundamental part of your own evolutionary theory. Whether we are looking at rats/mice, or lions/cats/tigers/leopards cheetahs, or African/Indian elephants or flies, or ants, or antelope. Recently there has been rapid speciation from highly similar genotypes, across many species. The studies of this are limited by incomplete genome sequencing, but this recent speciation is what is seen so far in the field. If the only proof of an overall pattern is a fallible process, you are left with nothing. Zero. Your whole evidence for evolution is based on this observable pattern , yet you present no evidence for the pattern. Without this so-called pattern you keep referring to, all we have is recent nested hierachies showing minor evolutionary changes, pointing exactly to baramins. You are perfectly correct, I do believe there are plenty of transitional fossils at the more detailed level. however this is no problem at all for me because I believe these transitional fossils exist within each baramin (these are recently evolved new species of original baramins).If you could show proof of dated transitional fossils between the major phyla and kingdoms then you would have some point in favor of your long version of evolution , until then you are just proving the baramin argument or showing assumed sequences with no empirical backing.

Yes its real. It often kills or maims if the duplication is coding. I still am waiting to see examples when it does not kill or maim when both copies code for proteins. Regarding message 35, have you ever thought that high copy numbers could have been present and yet rare before these studies showed their favorable selection? Deletions could have been selected and become dominant due to lack of need of high copy numbers, however the high copy numbers become selected for and dominant when the need arises again to have the high copy numbers. How do you know that these are duplications from low copy numbers rather than deletions from high copy numbers? Well the two genes also look exactly like they were created that way, so your "looks like" argument does not favor evolution in any manner, you will need to come up with something better than that. Two similar sequences speak of an intelligent designer. Forget the supernatural beings argument of yours, abiogenesis is really dumb, its like a rockfall instantly creating a perfect castle, the chances of nature instantly producing 3 million base pairs in perfect order for beneficial protein coding is ..........a joke. A bad joke. So forgetting the dumbness of abiogenesis, compared to the "supernatural beings" view, and looking at actual evidence the fish looks like its a baramin that is well designed with separate genes showing some matching sequences, this is exactly what an intelligent designer would do, duplicate good designs, and make slight adjustments when necessary. So looking at the icy fish genome does not favor evolution. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Aah I see. Sorry I misunderstood you then, yes people could easily misunderstand what they see if God made two designs with near identical genotypes. I doubt He did this, but its entirely possible within the view of intelligent design. This is a good point, makes a lot of sense. However the line is not arbitrary , its based on likely mutations over 6500 years. Once creationists have drawn our own line, then the test is, does anything contradict the line that has been drawn to test our theory. The theory has to be tested according to scientific criteria, delving into any possible contradictory evidence to baramins 6500 years ago. Because creationism is written off from the start, mainstream science has neglected to properly test the theory of baramins against the evidence. Other than dating techniques, which I will be discussing soon, mainstream science will be shocked to find that nothing contradicts the baramin view.Yet I believe the problem of evidence also lies with evolutionists. The problem is that evolutionists haven't had enough time to prove their processes over long timeframes, because all we do observe is current snapshots of genomes that show definite divergences within the last few thousand years. These genomes show recent divergence from recent common ancestors just as would be expected by both the baramin view and admittedly also the long timeframe evolutionary view. (Near identical genomes are observed). The only further evidence that evolution has, is assumed long term nested hierarchies.Unfortunately the long-term nested hierarchies as reflected in the phylogenetic tree are assumptions based on taxonomy , with not enough evidence for dated transitional sequences across the kingdoms and phyla. More detailed sequences of fossils within a phylum could merely reflect short term evolution from baramins and so this is not an argument in favor of long term evolution.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.