quote: No, the "problem" I'm having is that I've LEARNED from YOU **** that mutations are RANDOM and beneficial ones RARE. So when I hear that one has conveniently turned up "just in time" to save the day as it were, I have a "problem" thinking of this as a mutation.
Iâ€™m not convinced it was â€œjust in timeâ€ and I donâ€™t think you have a good idea of the time available either. Besides your extreme bias against mutations has been demonstrated here quite sufficiently.
quote: But there is no need to discuss the religious basis of the theory, it should be possible to discuss the theory itself without all that
The evidence is conclusively against a recent Creation.
There is strong evidence of evolutionary relationships between species you assume to be separate creations.
Your assumption of original perfect genomes seems to lack any evidence at all. And it needs significant work before it even deserves scientific consideration (your ideas about the variation in the immune system have obvious problems).
In fact I think I can safely say that your â€˜theoryâ€ is entirely based on religion, lacks an adequate model and struggles to even account for the evidence (indeed itâ€™s more about ad hoc attempts to explain the evidence away).
Since your theory lacks any solid basis in evidence, if we stick to science, we should dismiss it because the evidence overwhelmingly favours the mainstream view over yours. The religious basis is your main case - you havenâ€™t got anything else worth talking about (as we have seen).
Iâ€™ll just note that the evidence is strongly against some points - indeed we can say that the assertion that there are no useful mutations is definitely untrue - and there are a lot more details needed.
I donâ€™t think you have any idea of how you could get the same range of disease resistance with only two alleles per locus, for instance. Donâ€™t forget that in that case half the population would be homozygous at any given locus.
Nor do I think you have any sensible explanation for why the genetic difference in the peppered moth would look like a transposition (which is a known mechanism of mutation).
A coherent model which is at odds with the evidence and heavily relies on ad hoc assumptions to try and cope with that is scientifically worthless and doesnâ€™t deserve consideration. I donâ€™t think that a single point in your model can be shown to be true or even likely.
quote: I don't see a need to be able to explain that pattern of differences. It fits your model, not mine.
Thatâ€™s an admission that the evidence is on our side.
quote: It has never made any sense to me why evolution should form such a coherent pattern as a nested hierarchy anyway, so I don't see why I have to account for that either.
It is quite simple really. When a population splits into two or more species both populations will - in general - retain the ancestral traits, while developing new traits of their own. A nested hierarchy is the expected outcome of evolution. And I have to point out that your are not absolved of explaining the evidence just because you donâ€™t understand your opponentâ€™s explanation.
The nested hierarchy speaks very strongly against separate creations which canâ€™t be expected to neatly fall into that pattern.
quote: Then it can be seen that it's based only on scientific facts and not crank ideas.
There are plenty of crank ideas that donâ€™t mention God. If you want your ideas or be seen to be based on scientific facts youâ€™d do better to base it on scientific facts. Leaving God out doesnâ€™t make your ideas look any less cranky.
Repeatedly trying to dismiss the fact that you have no explanation for a lot of the genetic evidence doesnâ€™t help either.
quote: Everything after the Creation itself is a working out of observed natural facts
That still doesnâ€™t make your ideas any more scientific.
In fact you canâ€™t escape the religion by just leaving out the Creation. For instance, your weird ideas about the genes of the immune system arenâ€™t based on any real understanding of the relevant natural facts - not at all. Your ideas about how God should have done it are much more relevant.