Summations Only

Abusive talk has become standard at EvC lately. Are you proud of yourself?

Well, that's a start, because you should be ashamed of yourself.

If I were Admin I'd take you out for a couple of weeks for your last few posts.

As I said, speciation occurs but it is not what they or you think it is.

Each bed is labeled with ages in the millions, who cares exactly when evolutionists decided they must have formed so as not to seem quite as idiotic as they are. The age range is ludicrous enough no matter how or when they think the actual sediments were deposited.

Of course it obscured my point to say I was objecting to the redefinition of a WORD, when of course I'm objecting to the redefinition of the CONCEPT, the INSTITUTION of marriage itself.Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation, and again it's the real thing I'm talking about, not the word. It describes the situation of a small population's splitting off from a larger population to form a new variety of creature, which is called a new "Species" because it cannot interbreed with its former population. That's an artificial and meaningless criterion.In actual fact the reason such a new population can't interbreed with the former population is most likely that it is a genetic mismatch due to reduction in genetic variability, caused by the smaller number of individuals from which it developed, which is a condition which works against the possibility of further evolution. But of course the usual establishment idea is that there is always a neverending possibility of getting new species from former species. It can't happen. Even if mutation happened as you all think it does, further evolution can't happen from a condition of genetic depletion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where's this stuff coming from that I think I have "authority?" Aren't I allowed to have my own opinions?

I can't disagree with some of the positions of Creationist organizations and still respect them as Creationist organizations? Huh?

Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument. Perhaps you didn't intend that effect. Perhaps you only intended to fill your post with irrelevant pedantry. What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society. Are you on some kind of mission to turn the discussion into gobbledygook? Yes, my opinions are:1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation, and2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species that obscures the fact that when a population of a Species has arrived at that condition it usually has much less ability to produce new varieties due to the reduction in genetic variability, which means it has less, rather than more, ability to "evolve."Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask. In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Golly, ya don't say. Where have I "expected" anything? Seems to me I've merely stated my opinion, take it or leave it. I've argued it many times elsewhere. If you're interested in knowing the basis for the opinion I refer you to those arguments. But of course you aren't, you just want to accuse me of something new, in this case "expecting" my opinions to be accepted. Uh, who says I'm "upset" about being disagreed with? Where have I said they aren't entitled to their opinion? You guys seem to be spending all your time making up bizarre accusations to throw at me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but all this division does is isolate that new "species" in its genetically reduced condition so that it has no further direction to evolve in. The whole point of the idea of speciation within the context of the theory of evolution is that it is a stepping stone to further evolution, but genetically it is either very close to the end or has reached the end of all possibility of further evolution. This is the case with the cheetah, formed by a bottleneck but still characterized by the same kind of genetic situation speciation naturally produces. It can't interbreed with other cats and it also can't evolve new variations within its own population. If you want to call it a Species unto itself you only succeed in obscuring the fact that genetically it remains part of the Cat Species or Family.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah but I believe it is true so of course I state it as the objective fact I believe it to be. That doesn't mean I expect YOU to accept it. Oh I think it OUGHT to be, because I believe it to be true and the arguments I've encountered don't convince me otherwise. But "expect?" Of course not. Oh I believe I have done that as well, on other threads at EvC for instance. I've many times proposed that you WOULD see this if you were looking for it, looking for it for instance where it would be most likely to be easy to see, in the new "species" formed by "speciation" or at the end of a series of ring species. It doesn't have to be "depletion," merely reduction in genetic diversity. The tests might be a bit cumbersome to perform since they'd involve fairly extensive DNA sampling, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Um, you seem to be forgetting the context here, the definition of "speciation" as producing a new "species" which is defined by its inability to breed with the greater population. If it doesn't have that problem then presumably it would be regarded as just another variation of the population rather than a new Species.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.

I've answered this many times already. At the time of the Flood the genetic diversity would have been enormously greater than it is now so that the bottleneck would not have produced the high percentage of homozygosity found in the cheetah. Genetic diversity basically means high heterozygosity.The branching into many variations (breeds or races) by the splitting off of smaller populations gradually reduces the genetic diversity in a given population over many generations, so NOW in some populations such as the cheetah, we see the condition of almost total homozygosity.The Flood bottleneck would have brought about a reduction in the heterozygosity and an increase in homozygosity but there was still a great deal of variability left. Enough to produce everything we see today with more to spare.Yet an overall reduction in the total heterozygosity would have occurred. An estimate of the present percentage of heterozygosity in humans is something like 7%. That's enough for a great deal of variation still, and it would have been much much higher back in the time of the Flood."Junk DNA" figures in this too. There should have been much less at the time of the Flood, and its accumulation was likely the result of the loss of alleles since then, the reduction in genetic diversity in other words, the reduction to greater and greater homozygosity until some genes completely lose function altogether and become junk or dead DNA. Greater homozygosity over the generations, plus more Junk DNA. I've discussed this many times before.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobody has ever shown that, or even bothered to argue it, that I recall.