Outside the genome means that you'll never get a human being from an ape because the genetic stuff is simply not there in the ape genome. And yeah I know you think mutations will put it there but you are way underestimating how different human beings are from apes. Yeah I know you'll go on claiming it.
quote: The Colorado River DIDN'T carve out the Grand Canyon, that's one of the ToE's most ridiculous notions.
It is not at all ridiculous. Indeed the meanders of the canyon are clear evidence that it was carved by a river.
quote: The most likely explanation is that it was catastrophically carved out by retreating Flood waters.
That IS ridiculous. Catastrophic carving would not produce the meanders. And the Flood is just a myth anyway.
You have a weird idea of what is â€œmost likelyâ€
quote: The coral reefs no doubt survived the Flood, it doesn't have to have been a particularly violent event once the water was at its height.
Really ? How do they survive being buried by tons of sediment - which is your idea of what the Flood did - and work their way up to the top of the stack ? (Fossil coral reefs only add to your problems)
quote: No idea about the galaxies.
Thatâ€™s the only sensible thing you said. There is no good answer.
quote: Outside the genome means that you'll never get a human being from an ape because the genetic stuff is simply not there in the ape genome.
A lot of it is.
quote: And yeah I know you think mutations will put it there but you are way underestimating how different human beings are from apes
You do know that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees has been measured ? Perhaps you would like to explain why the measurements are badly wrong? Or at least stop making ignorant objections.
Selective breeding concentrates variations which would otherwise be spread through the population.
I don't know if this will be helpful to Faith, but it is likely that two different things regarding alleles are occurring simultaneously as a result of the strong selection of breeding. In the new breed, for some genes alleles not normally present in the same individual might be brought together. For other genes alleles normally present in the same individual might be absent.
That is, it's more than just a case of bringing together novel allele combinations. It also involves removing common allele combinations.
Nobody replied to this, so I'll provide a couple answers.
I'm "ignoring" mutations because I don't believe they have anything to do with what I'm talking about.
If "what I'm talking about" is breeding then ignoring mutation is perfectly reasonable. Most breeders never see a useful mutation over their entire breeding careers. They happen in coding regions with a noticeable effect only very rarely over such short timespans. That's why breeding doesn't produce new species.
But if "what I'm talking about" is evolution, which occurs over much long timespans, then mutation plays a significant role. Evolution does produce new species.
Remember, I'm describing MY model which is entirely different from yours.
Your model is entirely different from reality because it is based upon your imagination and what you wish were true rather than evidence.
At the absolute most I figure a mutation here and there could become part of the scenario but there's no point in making an issue of that.
Now you're saying that mutations *do* happen upon rare occasions, and if you're still thinking about breeding then you are correct. Given the short timespans useful mutations don't happen very often. Mutations are an extremely minor factor in breeding.
The same cannot be said of evolution. It happens over longer timespans with much larger populations than breeders usually work with. The longer timescales and larger populations make mutations a common component of evolution.
That's YOUR model and you are free to describe it as you will.
It's the model based upon evidence from the real world.
You persist in your weird illusion that you argue from evidence and I don't.
In your entire history here no one has ever been convinced that your weird conclusions follow from real world evidence. Even worse, you keep yourself uninformed by ignoring most evidence presented to you, often pleading that you just can't read it or that you're too tired or that you can't understand it or that you'll come back to it but never do. You ignore many messages entirely, 146 messages so far in this thread alone.
But that you don't argue from evidence is not the topic of this thread. Just declaring that your arguments are based on evidence means nothing. It's actually doing it that means something, and if you do then you will carry the day.
I don't think anyone here has ever been convinced of ANY creationist's views about anything. So I wouldn't take that fact as meaning much. And I do give evidence but it gets sucked up into the EvC twisting system. I'm happy with a lot of what I've said here. It's discouraging to be subjected to all the false accusations but I'm used to discouragement by now. Most of the time anyway.
Well, no, I have a pretty elaborate scenario in mind for that whole area from the Grand Staircase through the Grand Canyon area, how the retreating water carved the staircase and gouged out the GC, and scoured off the Kaibab and Coconino plateaus --and isn't it the Kaibab plateau where the meanders are located? The river remained after the Flood waters were gone and the canyon was its natural exit. Look at a relief map of the area: there are many different geological phenomena from plateaus to canyons to cliffs etc etc etc.
By the way this is a typical way my posts get dealt with, not a shred of willingness to see how it makes sense. Evidence you want? Forget it. The scenario makes good sense on its own and what would be the point of producing evidence when that much isn't even recognized?.