A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

God didn't change ANYTHING, he designed a genome for each Kind. But the varieties contained in the genome for apes depends on whether all the different kinds of apes come from one common ancestor, or common ancestor pair, and I've wondered about that. Whatever the original genome for a Kind, all the variations were built into it so that they would descend from that one common ancestor, all the apes from the one ape Kind.Same with cats, dogs, bears, mice, and any others that constitute a Kind.But human beings aren't an ape and aren't related to apes. There was one common ancestor for human beings too, actually a common ancestor pair, the pair Adam and Eve, and all the races of human beings descended from them, the original genome they both possessed containing all the varieties possible. I saw a Mendelian square for how all the different skin colors were in the original human genome, Adam and Eve having a medium skin color but their genome containing every possible combination of skin colors, from darkest to lightest and different color tones as well. It should be the same for all the varieties of human characteristics. Must be because the body design is more similar to the human body design.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They're all mutations, right? So the creation model explains them as mistakes in replication that may or may not harm the genome.

The only similar design I recall mentioning was chimp and human. And there is no implication of anything changing. God made one design for the chimp and another for the human. Why not?

Genomes are probably susceptible to certain kinds of mutations.

You imputed that quote to me but I didn't write it, JonF did.

This is a big fat lye.You keep saying "God did it" but I haven't said it at all, and I see no reason why science can't work from creationism just fine. We'd want to understand how the world is put together same as evolutionists do, we'd have as much reason to learn the chemical composition of things, what physics tells us, and we certainly need medicine because of the Fall. And please stop implying that I believe what you make up about God and creationism, it's all a lye.PLEASE OFFICIALLY TAKE BACK THIS FALSEHOOD.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "similar design" refers to TWO similar but different designs. It reads clearly to mean that to me, no idea why it doesn't to you. In the case of chimp and human they are completely separate designs. Cue Twilight Zone theme.

To a creationist it's a meaningless question. It has meaning in the context of evolution but not creation.

You seem to be confusing the basic difference between the creation of separate Kinds and the evolutionist common ancestor of all llfe with science in general. I've said nothing to justify your blanket accusation of "God did it" in any other context, it applies to the original creation, but ONLY to the original creation.There is no reason whatever that scientific questions would not be pursued in a creationist context, as I explained above in Message 382. In a fallen world we have every need for all the sciences -- the REAL sciences, that is, not the bogus "science" of evolutionism -- and for medicine in particular. "God did it" is your silly theme song, not mine.PLEASE TAKE BACK THIS FALSE IDEA.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.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then it can be seen that it's based only on scientific facts and not crank ideas.But I also explained that the original Creation was God's doing. After that we work from what He made.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Though the varieties of the Kinds may form nested hierarchies, it's all subjective anyway. But what I object to is your idea that nested hierarchies prove evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Everything after the Creation itself is a working out of observed natural facts.

Others described the immune system as having an enormous number of mutations/"alleles," and IIRC said they did have functions in protecting against diseases, or many of them did or something llke that. All I did was realize that if that is the case different individuals have protections against different diseases, making it llke Russian roulette. I'd have to review the discussion to remind myself what it was all about, but I also remember thinking that its genes must originally have been fixed for certain diseases, which would have meant EVERYONE had the same protections. The mutations would have scattered the protections so that many individuals would have been deprived of the originals. If I'm remembering it at all correctly that still seems to be a fair descriptions of the situation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've found it difficult to take the nested hierarchy notion seriously for some reason. I don't think I really get what is being claimed about it. If it's just the fact that there seems to be a regularity in inheritance patterns from generation to generation, that seems rather trivial or obvious and of no real importance.What you say above about changes in hereditary traits from generation to generation seems to me to be what I just said, obvious, predictable but contributing nothing to the ToE. For one thing the only pattern of inheritance that could be observed is microevolution -- which you acknowledge -- so anything to do with the ToE, inheritance beyond the species, is all assumption, nothing you could demonstrate. And by the way, normal sexual recombination is quite enough to produce the changes you are talking about, you don't need mutations as well, so I'd guess the mutations are also an assumption and not actually observed. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you, that was very clarifying. I've printed it out.I don't use "God did it" so would you please stop attributing that to me?I'll think about it and respond later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.