Summations Only

The great phenotypic diversity couldn't exist unless there was great genetic diversity in the overall dog population. There's less and less in each breed of course.

How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is nothing but a stack of rocks, younger on top of older. But YOUR difficulty is in explaining that where they are found represents the time they lived in. You can date the layer or layers to a certain age, but you can't prove that they represent a time period when the things in the rock or rocks lived on the earth. Layers you've got, fossils you've got, but proving that they lived on the earth in the time frame the rocks have been dated to is not possible. And in fact it's impossible that they ever lived "then" anyway because in many cases the enormous area covered by the rock makes it impossible. The subject here is not the Flood, it's the impossibility of the Geologic Timescale.

It's the fact that there are so many dog breeds that shows that the dog Kind has an unusual degree of genetic diversity in the overall population. It would be odd if wolves had much since they don't vary much phenotypically. if wolves represent the original dog then the many different breeds of dog must have taken all the genetic diversity with them, as it were, isolating the wolf species and reducing its genetic diversity so that it is really a breed rather than representative of the original population. It's probably phenotypically quite different from the original too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If an animal has a propensity to split off into isolated smaller populations in nature it's going to develop new phenotypic characteristics or breeds or varieties or races because that's a form of selection: the new group takes a portion of the genetic variability with it which creates a new set of gene frequencies from the parent population which will produce a new phenotype that eventually becomes characteristic of the new population.There are animals, herd animals mostly I would think, that maintain their phenotypic homogeneity because they remain together and breed together. But if some of them get geographically isolated, that separated population will develop new characteristics just as always happens in any form of reproductive isolation, which is a form of selection. This must be how there is a huge herd of black type wildebeests but another herd isolated from them called the blue wildebeests that developed their own phenotypic characteristics and maintain them by remaining a herd which breeds freely among themselves. If the separated new population is very large then its separation and isolation will also affect the parent population's gene frequencies so it may also change phenotypically.Wolves are a pack animal but as far as I know the pack never reaches the numbers of a herd animal, so they are more likely to develop separated populations of different phenotypic characteristics as long as enough genetic diversity remains. But if all those dog breeds came from the original wolf the wolf wouldn't have a lot of genetic diversity left for that kind of phenotypic variation. I thought I said the opposite. The wolf's genetic diversity would be reduced because of all the separated populations that got separated from it taking their own new gene frequencies with them, reducing the wolf to a breed itself. But their own genetic diversity would be reduced because they have become separated from the now greater population of all those other dog breeds. It would be very unusual if they didn't also change from their own reduced genetic diversity and new gene frequencies. I'm describing the actual situation as I understand it, how nature produces new phenotypes by simple reproductive isolation, not making things up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just want to answer this much for now: Of course it wouldn't. Where are you getting this idea?

I've never forgotten it, why would you think I had? OK I get your point but my point is that you can't prove the ROCK represents a LANDSCAPE in a time period so you don't have a landscape to put your animals into which to my mind blows the whole Geologic Timescale idea to bits.I think I'm confusing two different arguments though, sorry.Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth. This is where dinosaur fossils have been found buried, over all that huge territory. It may be represented by different sedimentary rocks in different places but it IS represented by sedimentary rocks. Over all that territory.Of course dinosaurs can't live on rocks, and of course it will be explained that the rock wasn't there for the entire time period but only a small part of it, so presumably the dinosaurs roamed in the area when it was covered with lots of vegetation, which they needed to survive. So they would not only have lived but also died and NOT been fossilized in that long long period of time which would have been the main part of the millions of years assigned to the Jurassic.In some small part of that time period this sediment formed for some reason, a very rare occurrence though it occurs like this in every supposed time period, this huge huge flat area of sediment which is seen all over the world now as a flat sedimentary ROCK in which all those dinosaurs are now found fossilized.While that enormous area of sediment was there no dinosaurs could have lived in that area. And that area covers most of all the continents on the earth. Go look up the map of the Jurassic, or the map of the locations of dinosaurs which shows the rocks from mid Triassic to late Cretaceous, even more area nothing could live on. Oh, supposedly for this very short period of time in the millions of years alootted to the time period and somehow that's supposed to solve the problem of the demolition of the dinosaurs' living area.Supposedly sediments kept piling on top, and they had to be the seidments associated with the next time period up the Geo Timescale wouldn't they? And then you keep burying it and burying it without an explanation for how all this material could ever become the simple stack of sedimentary leayers seen in the geo/strat columns everywhere. You have to end up with those particular rocks so they have to be originally the sediments from which those rocks were formed.What animal could live on a flat expanse of one sediment? There isn't one iota of evidence that their surface was ever lushly covered with vegetation; these are all bare flat rocks. So for whatever even very short period those rocks were forming nothing like a dinosaur or anything else could live there. So they must have all died out. If nothing was living then nothing could have evolved to the next time period.And this situation would have existed in every one of the time periods since every one of them has this odd flat rock to mark it. All the marine life would have to die in those time periods too. You don't get a flat sedimentary rock without a flat expanse of sediment onw which nothing could live.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't even remotely recognize what that is supposed to be saying.Let me try again.Original population of the Kind which might have been a wolf.They proliferate after getting off the ark. They contain all the genetic diversity of the Kind left; presumably the vast majority of the Kind was killed in the Flood.But from the genetic diversity possessed by the two on the ark, a great many new species of the Kind developed. First the two produced a population of offspring, and as the population grew, some individuals formed new populations that broke off and got geographically and reproductively isolated from the others. Every such new population would have its own portion of the genetic potentials with its own new gene frequencies so that new phenotypes would come to characterize each new population. It's highly unlikely any one population had all of any one gene/allele or all of any one set of genes/alleles and it would be very unlikely if any of them had the same gene frequencies as the original population.This splitting off of daughter populations would also reduce the numbers and the genetic diversity of the parent population. It could greatly reduce in numbers and become just a breed unto itself. There isn't even any rason it would remain very wolf like but one of the groups did in any case.Every split would allot a new collection of the genetic potentials and overall reduce the genetic diversity in each group. No one group would possess anything like the original genetic diversity of the dog Kind, they'd all have reduced genetic diversity with respect to that original.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh well, this is futile. You seem to think "earth" could become a sedimentary rock. "Earth" can't become a sedimentary rock; "soil" can't become a sedimentary rock. Earth is made up of lots of things besides the simple separated ssediment that form the rocks in the geo/strata columns. Earth can't become one of those rocks. You can't turn earth into sedimentary rock so how are you going to get the next rock in your supposed stack of rocks? You aren't. Sigh.You say to look out my window for evidence of, what? Out my window there are trees and other green things. In the strata there are only bare flat rocks with some fossilized green things here and there inside them. Nothing that flat exists on the earth's surface normally, and no single-sediment either. It takes special conditions to get those characteristics. The surface of the earth is made up of lots of different sediments and organic matter, the rock layers are not. The surface of the earth is variegated in many ways, the strata are amazingly flat and uniform in character. Whatever kind of rock it is. It's in layers, not mixed together, but the earth is all mixed together. The only place the green things are abundant in the strata is the coal beds.At some point in the "time period" the rocks that supposedly represent it had to have covered the whole area they now cover within the stack of strata. When that happened nothing could live there. Even if it was only a short period in the millions of years everything would have to die. if it was a wet sediment nothing could live there, and when it became rock nothing could live there, but the point is it HAS to become exposed sediment or rock to become a layer in the geo/stratigraphic column.Sigh. I know this is futile for most here, but maybe someone will get it.Sigh. The Holocene "covers the entire Earth." Sigh. And you expect the Holocene to end up as a flat slab of rock? Have you ever looked at the surface of this Earth?The stuff you've supposedly "explained" to me does not make any sense whatever.Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Cats don't vary as much as some other animals. They vary mostly in size and coloring but they are mostly very much recognizably cats with cat faces. Dogs, for comparison, have very different faces from one another among other varying characteristics. Yes all recognizably dog faces, OK, but still there are more differences among them than among cats.But anyway there is certainly plenty of time for the creation of many different species of anything to have formed since the ark. Small cats have litters at least once a year and the big cats every few years. It only takes a year for small cats to become adults and big cats a few years. A population of a couple dozen cats that moves away from the parent population and reproduces among its own number could become a whole new breed in a hundred years. Most animals could. 4500 years is plenty of time to establish many such separated populations in different parts of the world, all splitting off from the original ark population and becoming reproductively isolated from all the other populations.Human beings probably only need a few hundred years in an isolated location to develop a characteristic racial appearance. I don't know how long, but only as long as it would take for the whole population to merge all their genes together through enough generations of marrying each other. Five hundred years for sure, and a thousand would certainly do it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I doubt it. I think there are certain characteristics that identify a trilobite no matter how superficially it may seem to differ from others.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But that's the diffrerence: different kinds have different degrees of genetic diversity and the more diversity the more they will vary. Cats seem to vary a lot less than other kinds. It's not "merging races" it's merging the genes of a group of individuals that originally could be of many different races, though in most cases probably all the same race but with different individual characteristics in any case. The merging is going to mix together all their characteristics over many generations.The differentiation occurs with the isolation of a particular number of individuals that become a reproductively isolated population. That isolation of a small number creates a new gene pool with new gene frequencies than the parent population. In the beginning they may be quite different from each other, it depends on the particular individuals in the separating group. But when they've intermarried together generation after generation after generation, give it a thousand years, their genes will combine to give them characteristics that identify them as a group.

The ark's purpose was to preserve land creatures; sea creatures had to fend for themselves.

As I believe I said, they are the same Kind, I don't differentiate them by their basic shape; their differences that make them separate "species" (or subspecies), are more superficial.And that's what I think is the case with the trilobites too: although they may differ quite a bit superficially they share a basic structure that identifies them as the same Kind. They all share the same features. It's possible I'd want to separate some into separate groups if I spent more time on it but to me as long as they have the basic tri-lobite form they are the same Kind. They have so much variety within the Kind because all the known specimens are pre-Flood. After the Flood the genetic diversity of creatures that were preserved on the ark was greatly reduced because of the bottleneck. That is probably also true of most of the creatures that survived in the oceans too.Dogs differ from cats in the basic structure, the skeletal differences, that's what makes them different Kinds judging at that basic level (but they are also behaviorally extremely different, dogs are all behaviorally clearly dogs and cats clearly cats).Humans and chimps differ in their basic structure, that's what makes them different Kinds at that level too, forget behavioral differences which are enormous to say the least. They do not have the same basic shape despite having the same appendages as do cats and dogs as well. I think the difference in basic shape is apparent in both comparisons.That's how I sort it but since all this is subjective there's no point in trying to argue it beyond this point. I suppose you'll continue to see it the way you do and so will I see it as I do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.