Summations Only

The way you characterize the creationist arguments against evolution is just not true. All the claims for evolution have been answered and answered and answered and answered but you guys never remember the answers or take the trouble to present them accurately. Not that I'm surprised but it is wearying.As for hanging around a familiar few topics, yes, of course, because the field is immense, and even the professionals limit themselves to a chosen area. So much more so the amateurs who try to debate this stuff since just learning enough to address a specific issue is quite a project. And I keep forgetting terms I learned too, maybe losing my memory or more likely, I hope, the natural result of trying to cram too much stuff into my head which is already stuffed with half a dozen other areas of interest that have nothing to do with evolution, or just the result of exercising only a few of the terms in the effort to get a particular idea across, so that the others drop out. Not asking for sympathy, just a realistic appraisal of the situation here. If it's dedicated scientists you want here instead of us upstarts, a different approach is needed.

That's the funniest thing you've said all week.

That would be you, when you said that: "You have no evidence for evolution". Really? OK then, explain to us how creationism predicts the order found in the fossil record.Oh, wait. By your own admission you can't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the creationist arguments. You've said that you don't get your arguments from creationist sources, haven't you? You make up your arguments ex nihilo, don't you?Creationist sources do have arguments that are every bit as foolish as yours but you can't fault people for going by the semi-official creationist foolishness instead of yours.

My apologies. You don't have to go through it, but do you happen to know the general form of the answer to this question:Marsupial mice exist
Placental mice exist
They look very similar to one another
Yet they are more genetically different from one another than Humans and Cows are.All of this is observed and documented.Evolution's explanation is well known and public knowledge.
What's yours?I'm sure I've not heard it before, it's the simplest form of the question I've asked ( I usually make it more complex but maybe thats a mistake). Of course for individuals, but as a group they cluster around a small number of pet topics. Design/Order, Thermodynamics, Flood...that kind of thing. So the same arguments are used, the same kinds of counterexamples come up. There are other areas of evidence that Creationists never touch, such as explaining the converging lines of different types of evidence towards quite specific conclusion, the overall patterns of relatedness as well as some of the patterns within the overall patterns.Instead you talk about hypothetical mega-alleles designed by God would totally refute evolution. Well no, maybe not entirely, but OK let's run with it. So what? Lots of imaginary ideas would falsify it, that's why it's falsifiable.There's not genes built in at the start to last for billions of years? That would be a problem. Quantify and provide evidence for built in super genes and their alleles.It's not science to imagine scenarios that falsify it. You have to do the science part of the falsification. You see the difference, I assume. Sure, but I'm not asking for dedicated scientists.I'm asking for some argument as to why whatever you are doing is science and creationism.Look science up. It doesn't say 'have to use complicated equations'. It's an approach. It uses certain reasoning and certain philosophical tools that have been argued and and argued and are the ones that stood up to argument as being decent ways to ascertain glimpses of what might be true about the world.Science is the culmination of thousands of years about thinking about stuff. We didn't set the standards, humanity has - through debate. I don't expect you to generate a theory, unless you claim to have done so. I assume there are Creation Scientists you can use as sources just as I have ... scientists for mine. I am not a scientist, more a philosopher.Making up stories, or using other stories, and pointing at a something here and there and saying 'this supports my story' isn't how science operates. This is important because all that arguing above? It kind of focussed on this very issue.Your ideas need to be falsifiable to be science. Because otherwise they cannot be tested. Untestable ideas cannot be scientific. You have a theory"The flood can explain all of geology"But I have no sense of what would disprove this theory, so it's untestable even if you believe it would falsify some other theory were it true. If every test can only be 'uncertain' or 'verified' - it isn't testable.No hard maths, and horrendous jargon. That's the standard. Creationism hasn't met it as far as I've seen. Sorry if that's my poor memory.

What is wearying is to have you make admissions and then forget them only to bring up the same arguments over again. For example, you have admitted that you have no evidence for 'Faith Genetics' and have blamed that lack of evidence on scientists being blind to how genetics really work. Then you come back later and claim that the evidence supports your propositions just as well as others.Secondly, being able to make up a story that explains evidence and actually making predictions by the theory of evolution and finding the evidence are not two equivalent things. The first is a sham and the second is science. In particular you make no attempt whatsoever to vet your explanations and most posters have pointed to holes. As you have admitted, creation science is nothing more than an attempt to discredit science. Creation science itself makes no predictions, its proponents conduct few or no investigations, and those investigations that it does conduct are only prompted by scientific findings.Yeah, we remember your pasts posts. And we also recall our own responses to them and your responses that complain that the posts are too technical, too confusing, etc. And then we see you attempting to re-present your original ideas as if they had been proven to anyone's satisfaction but your own.This thread is supposedly a discussion about whether creationism is science and not about whether it is correct. I note that your participation has devolved to suggesting that evolution is on par with creationism but only by denying that evolution is scientific. Bertot seems to have abandoned the use of the word science and scientific completely. Those tactics are pretty much an admission that the main debate here is over and that only side issues are being discussed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If I've really forgotten something -- it's possible of course -- what good could it possibly do to tell me I've forgotten it without quoting what I actually said? I get that kind of accusation a lot here, it's useless if I don't remember what I said, a total loss. I don't know if I really said what you think I said or you misconstrued it or what.

Don't you think that's a pretty ironic comment? After all, my response was to a post in which you accused pretty much all of the posters here of forgetting points you claim to have made. Yet you provided no references, named no names, nor pointed to any of your own proofs. Apparently that kind of source citing is for me but not you.Let me simply make an example inquiry along the lines of the one I referred to in my post. Your proposition requires that wolves be genetically less diverse than dogs. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such is the case. By contrast there is plenty of evidence to the contrary that dogs are both genetically and by phenotype more diverse than wolves. That evidence includes at least a few pieces of direct genetic evidence of mutations adding to that diversity that you yourself have acknowledged. There is absolutely no evidence of any super packing of genomes that springs into action when some subset of wolves or any other animals is isolated.Previously your responses to this questions and similar questions have been excuses for why there is no evidence, but no actual producing of evidence. And of course you must have noticed that people are forced to repeatedly cite some of that direct evidence in response to your claims that no evidence exits. So it seems that it is you who is actually forgetting or ignoring past discussions.

No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't require that but what evidence is there anyway?You just reminded me of all the problems with communication I have with you. I don't see any point in saying any more. I don't know what post you are referring to, I vaguely remember the topic of wolves, don't remember where the discussion went on that subject.Sorry

You dispute that dogs are a subspecies descended from wolves? Or are dogs an exception to your proposition that such breeding and evolution require a loss of diversity? You just quoted me saying that you have no evidence for your proposition and responded by asking what evidence there is. And in the same post you are addressing I cite evidence for the contrary proposition.Nice...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It depends on the size of the population. Often the parent population remains greater in numbers and the daughter populations become the source of new daughter populations. I don't see any way to assume how it happened with dogs, but there is no reason whatever to think wolves lost more genetic diversity than any given dog population. And if you understood my argument you would know that the usual situation is that the daughter population loses the genetic diversity in the examples I usually give. You don't cite it, you state it exists, without supplying it. Unless the DNA of wolves and various dog populations has been compared for genetic diversity, for which there should be some data somewhere if it has, then you don't have any evidence of which has the greater diversity.The point is there is nothing inevitable about wolves having less genetic diversity than dogs. Basically you are imposing a straw man on me, apparently not understanding the argument.ABE: I think it was HBD who posted a chart some time ago comparing the genetic diversity of various dog breeds. They were all over the map as I recall, but that's probably because in most cases it isn't known which breed descended from which others, or the number of individuals or any of that necessary information.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wouldn't that imply that wolves have more genetic diversity than dogs?

Yes. I did make the reverse statement. If that is what misled Faith, then that is entirely my fault. I'll note that my subsequent statements all correctly indicated that dogs were actually more diverse.Ah, well. Some egg on my face...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I want to note here that my citing of your position should have been that Wolves would necessarily be more diverse than dogs. Your answer seems to accept that as your own position. The question is not what wolves have lost, but whether their diversity is less than that of all dogs as a sub species and not single breeds of dogs. The populations to be compared here are all dogs and all wolves, which is rather generous all dogs come from some wolf varieties, but we don't know if how well the wolves from which dogs emerged are representative of the wolf population.Further my question to you is not whether there is any reason to 'think' wolves are less diverse than dogs, but rather whether there is any evidence for your proposition. By contrast, there is at least some evidence of increases in genetic variation of dogs after they became dogs through mutation again at least some of which you do not dispute. That alone is contrary to the proposition that there is no way to increase the diversity in a sub species.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

DPEdited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.