Summations Only

Probably. But then they should be the topic and not the fairy tale, since, you know, they are facts and the fairy tale isn't.

Nothing in the dstant past can be replicated or tested. My complaint about evo/geo interpretations is that they are regarded as fact despite this handicap, though based completely on pure imagination from what, bits of flotsam found in the flat slabs of layered sedimentary rocks.Of course some things can be known from the past, like the tomb, but I'm talking about THEORY, INTERPRETATION, not just facts. All that stuff about "landscapes" such as a beach or a coastline environment and that sort of thing constructed entirely out of bits found in a rock and absolutely nothing else. And then I try to point out that you couldn't have any such landscapes where the rocks now are because they cover way too much territory and are nothing but flat sedimentary rocks which couldn't have formed from a landscape anyway, but the idea is so ingrained despite its impossibility nobody will ever see what's wrong with it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

DNA is very solid evidence, but bits and pieces of stuff found in a rock evoke imaginary landscapes to the Evo/Old Earth paradigm-saturated mind that are unprovable and in fact impossible and actually falsify the whole paradigm. And DNA couldn't tell you about any of that anyway. Neither could radiometric dating.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You might try once. Or refute the usual straw man for the millionth time.

How do you test, replicate or in any way validate the idea that time periods as indicated in the rocks actually existed as landscapes with living things populating them? All you have is the theory or imaginative construct and no way whatever to prove it. Besides which as I've pointed out the rock itself makes it impossible, which you all flat out deny. How can you prove that your fields or that grooved Oceanside bench could ever become a rock in the geo column?How do you test, replicate, or validate the whole evolutionary theory that any given animal descended from any other? That mammals descended from reptiles for instance? You cannot prove that no matter how much circumstantial stuff you amass, and there will always be the possibility of some other way of interpreting it, and in any case the changes that would have to be made are astronomically impossible..You hold to these theories because there is no way to actively prove or disprove them despite their impossibility..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Boy was that a gobbledygook of an answer.

Yes that is a change, but it's a normal change due to microevolution, which would produce junk DNA over many generations. I thought we were talking about a structural difference in the genome itself, from a supergenome lilke one with polyploidy or something like that, to today's familiar structure by which traits are governed by genes, maybe several but still fewer than on the ark. But yes if you want to talk about the effects of evolution on the genome, today's is different in that respect. Since a tiny percentage of all living things still living since the Flood, there is also with just a tiny percentage of the genetic diversity left for each creature, and yet it was enough at the time of the Flood to produce all the variations of each Kind we see today. I think this ought to be intuitively obvious but I suppose I need to find clearer ways of explaining it.I've wondered myself why all the trilobites died out. But I did see somewhere that there is a land-adapted species of trilobite living today.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are right I would point to the dog species Kind since they vary greatly in size and are all still dogs. The trilobites had a lot more genetic diversity to play with than today's dogs do, but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today, although they went through the bottleneck of the Flood and the trilobites are all pre-Flood with all or at least most of their original genetic diversity available.Yes this is my own theory of course, that I've been arguing for the last decade or so. I don't know if it would ever be possible to persuade anyone here of it but it seems to me to hold together very well; it's certainly consistent. If there are better ways to argue for it I hope I run across them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I certainly have no problem with even extreme erosion of cliffs, but I can't regard some sand on top of tilted and apparently deeply buried siltstone layers as an angular unconformity, just as there is no way that I can see how any current landscape could ever become a slab of rock such as we see in the geo/strat columns. I understand I'm probably not going to be able to persuade anyone of this, though I'll keep trying anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How are the traces of those living things in any way evidence of the notion that they lived in a particular time period? That's the problem. Yes there are specific fossils in specific layers but that proves nothing about time periods. It's such an ingrained assumption, however, it's apparently impossible to see how it's a theory and remains a theory without any way to test or prove it.You also can't figure out what I'm trying to do, but since what I'm trying to do is so far from the mainstream assumptions that's understandable, if frustrating and annoying to be constantly accused of lying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Extra alleles are the result of mutations that are mostly deleterious, and yes I am talking about general principles.Those many "alleles" which are really just mutations, most of which are deleterious, are also mostly on their way to becoming junk DNA for that reason, which is therefore actually a reduction in genetic diversity rather than an increase . No good thing for any species.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But there's a big big problem here. Perhaps I needed to be more specific but the main problem is that you can't prove the time period itself, meaning prove that there ever was a time on the earth when certain plants and animals lived. You are assuming the time period, assuming that a particular layer of rock really does represent that time period, but that can't be proved any more than the animals in it can be proved to have lived at any given time. It's really the same problem. You can claim the rock is some particular age, but not that it represents a landscape with creatures in it. But that isn't the problem I had in mind. In my frame of reference the rocks are just rocks, not time periods such as Paleogene or Permian or whatnot.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes most are neutral, sorry, but others are deleterious and it is well kinown that beneficial mutations are very very rare. So the neutral mutations don't change the phenotype, but they do change the sequence of the gene which seems to me to be a destructive effect in itself. It's not needed, it's not useful.

Yes, the amount of salt is something I already mentioned. Not even enough to cause the sagging. You are always credulously treating the evogeo paradigm interpretation as unassailable fact and making my eyes roll out onto the floor. This is unprovable nonsense, and it ends any motivation I might have to answer you in spite of all the other reasons I have to ignore you.

Sand over the tilted siltstones would not form an angular unconformity, it would just bury the siltstones.I guess you think you explained how that grooved landscape could become a slab of rock but it doesn't explain that at all, it's just eyeball-rolling mystification.You really don't seem to know that what you like to call "reality" is just an unprovable and really quite nonsensical impossible interpretation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.