quote: A change in color is entirely within the genome. Any form of cat's ear is within that genome too.
The original genome couldnâ€™t produce them. So what makes those changes â€œwithin the genomeâ€ ?
quote: Give me a rodent ear or a chimp's fingernail on a human being.
The first wouldnâ€™t happen - evolutionary theory claims that it wouldnâ€™t happen. And as far as I know the differences between a chimpâ€™s fingernail and a humanâ€™s is as small as the changes that you say are â€œin the genomeâ€ - possibly smaller.
quote: I know those are ridiculous ideas but the change would have to be on that order, something that the genome can't and never will produce normally.
But you have explicitly dismissed examples of something that the unchanged genome couldnâ€™t and never would produce normally.
quote: As long as it's a color of fur or a kind of cat's ear it's within the genome though produced by a mutation
But what makes it â€œwithin the genomeâ€ ? It isnâ€™t that the unchanged genome could produce those traits. And what makes the differences between a chimpâ€™s fingernails and a humanâ€™s â€œoutside the genomeâ€? You havenâ€™t even said what those differences are.
Unless and until you can explain your criterion there is nothing to discuss. We cannot be expected to produce examples meeting your condition unless we know what it means. And you either cannot or will not provide that explanation.
quote: Well then pick a trait that is clearly chimpanzee,
Faith, you were supposedly giving examples to illustrate your completely unclear criterion. Nobody else can do that because your criterion is incredibly unclear.
quote: I'm making a general point,
You may be trying to make a general point, but you havenâ€™t managed to adequately communicate it yet.
quote: I don't care about the specifics
Then how can you know that your claim is true ?
quote: ...certainly there are chimp characteristics that COULDN'T be taken for human and my argument would be the same: mere mutations in the genome aren't going to turn the chimp genome into a human genome
The genetic comparisons are more focussed on the actual evolutionary claim that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. But to the best of my knowledge mutations could do the job. And - without getting into the specifics you want to avoid - how can you possibly show otherwise ?
quote: You say they can, I say they can't. They can only reproduce chimp characteristics.
And so we come to the question of which changes are possible and which are not. It is clear that traits which are not currently chimpanzee characteristics could be added. Out of all the mutations that are possible at the genetic level, which are possible and which are not ? And why are these allegedly impossible mutations impossible ?
quote: Chimp genome makes nothing but chimps. Human genome makes nothing but humans. Dog genome makes nothing but dogs
That is an empty tautology that doesnâ€™t deal with the issues.
quote: Mutations don't change this fact, each genome continues to make what it makes
Mutations change what the genome makes.
quote: So there's no reason to think more mutations would change that fact.
That is obviously wrong, unless you are going to say that no matter how much the genome changes you are going to call a chimp descendant a â€œchimpâ€. Which would prove nothing.
If you donâ€™t want to waste time on that semantic game, the fact that the genome changes, producing phenotypic changes IS a reason. The fact that the differences between existing species can be explained by mutations is another. And they are good reasons.
But you offer no reason at all to think that you are correct.
quote: Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.
That really depends on what you mean by â€œCreationismâ€. As the idea is usually understood the evidence is very much against it.
Creationism started by endorsing fixity of species - which was reasonable for a long time, before fossils were recognised as the remains of living creatures. Historical evidence did not show signs of change. Egyptian tomb art, for instance - and their animal mummies showed recognisable species. Artificial selection could modify form, but it did not create new species.
Creationism carried on endorsing that for a long time, even after the fossil evidence was understood. But that changed in more recent decades. Granted the reason for that change was the realisation that there were too many species to fit on Noahâ€™s Ark - but still it is significant that they endorsed evolution as the answer. Even now Faith is extremely uncomfortable with that and wished that creationists wouldnâ€™t admit it.
However, that raises a question. Granted that evolution works to the level of producing species and genera can it go even further ? The evidence does not reveal any convenient boundaries or limits that would restrict evolution to the Creationist â€œkindsâ€. The evidence for evolution does cross the assumed boundaries - the taxonomic â€œtree of lifeâ€ is a single tree, not a collection of little shrubs. Even if we reject the â€œtransitional fossilâ€ label for the more descriptive â€œanatomical intermediateâ€ we do have many such fossils and they do support the idea of evolutionary transitions. Genetic evidence, too, points to common ancestry beyond the level where creationists would be happy.
It seems unreasonable, then, to treat that sort of creationism as a scientifically or even intellectually valid point of view. The â€œkindâ€ concept lacks even any theological validation beyond â€œsolvingâ€ the problem of room in the Ark. Why then, should anyone other than those apologists who find it necessary to answer the Ark problem consider it at all likely to be true ?
quote:the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying.
Genetics isn’t studied for that purpose, no. But that isn’t a problem. Genetics is studied to understand genes and that understanding shows serious problems with your ideas.
Mendelian genetics was a theoretical model which works well enough for breeding. But it has no understanding of actual genes or what they really do or how genes relate to traits. By making speculations based on Mendelian genetics and ignoring what real genes are and do you are just heading off into fantasyland.
quote:A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them
Which, of course is in line with evolutionary theory. But those changes are not changes in genes, they are changes to regulatory sequences. So instead of triggering the building of an antenna, a leg might be built instead.
But genes code for proteins and proteins can have multiple uses. Genes can even code for more than one protein via Alternative Splicing. The idea that the gene does one thing and one thing only is known to be wrong. A protein may be a blood clotting agent and a venom, a structural element and an enzyme.
quote:Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits like fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all life is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.
As we know regulatory changes can bring about significant variations. Add to this the fact that genes may be lost and gained - and the clear genetic similarities and we see that your claims are purely assumptions. It is entirely possible for your assumptions to be wrong - especially when we know that your ideas about “what genes do” ARE wrong.
quote:AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further.
No, you’ll never recognise that you are wrong, although it has been shown again and again. All you have is a bad theoretical argument, which doesn’t even stand up on that level, let alone the evidence.
quote:Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.
Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY more diverse than the apes (including humans). There is no consistent standard by which you can say that trilobites are one species but humans are a different species from the other apes. We know, it has been argued in this forum. In reality trilobites are classed as an Order while the apes are classed as a superfamily - a lower taxonomic level. And that is because of the relative diversity (and quite likely biased in favour of the apes).
This catalogue of errors is hardly a convincing argument.
quote:With history we often have docments by different sources we can check out, and we may also have documents about those sources, at least references IN documents, so we DO have witnesses to history. We DON'T have any kind of witness at all of prehistoric geological events.
Let us note - again - that forensic evidence is often more reliable than witness evidence. We do have the evidence left by events, and that evidence shows that your Flood geology is nonsense. That’s why you keep trying to ignore it or explain it away. Sometimes making up ridiculous falsehoods.
quote:We DON'T have any kind of witness at all of prehistoric geological events. Unless you want to count Noah and those to whom he told the story of the Flood, or Gilgamesh for that matter, and I would count them myself...
Since you can’t trace the stories we have back to Noah or anyone who knew him this amounts to classing myths and legends and folktales as “witness evidence”.
quote:...but as for purely science-based theories, nada, it's ALL nothing but interpretation with no way to test it.
On the contrary there is plenty of testing that can be done - and has been done. That’s just one more thing you want to cover up. Dating methods can be tested against items of known date. They can be tested against each other - cinsilience can be powerful evidence. We can see what observed processes produce - we can see which sediments are being deposited now, we can look at sand dunes, and rivers and examine the sand grains and pebbles. You’ve even pointed to Berthold’s flume experiments. This is how geology’s interpretation of the past has been and still is being refined.
quote:Electrons and other atomic phenomena, and the motion of the earth, have measurable effects in many other phenomena IN THE PRESENT that can be used to study them. Again, this is a different situation from geological phenomena that occurred in the unwitnessed/prehistoric past
In fact it is very similar. Events are inferred from the traces they leave. Witnesses don’t change that. In fact all sensory evidence is the same - marvellous as the human senses are, they are limited, imperfect and indirect. A surprising amount of what you “see” is inferred by the brain.
quote:personally think there's plenty of evidence of the Flood in the strata and the fossils and other phenomena I've spent a fair amount of time talking about here but I can't prove that either.
You can’t prove it because it isn’t true. I can’t believe that you don’t know that by now. You have to know that you are trying to suppress the evidence that proved you wrong. You have to know that your calls for “honesty” aren’t any such thing.
Let us consider your argument that fossils are evidence for the Flood,
You assert that the fossils are the remains of many dead things, the Flood was supposed to kill almost everything, therefore the fossils are evidence for the Flood.
Obviously this is very weak evidence. And in fact this evidence is just as consistent with mainstream views, To get better evidence we’d have to look a little deeper at the evidence. But you refuse to do that because your argument falls apart.
For instance, the Flood was supposed to kill land life (indeed, land animals - the account even suggests that some trees survived). Yet the fossil record is predominantly of aquatic life. (Which, curiously enough we should expect if the mainstream view were correct)
There is a strong order to the fossil record. This can’t be explained by the Flood. I know you call it an “illusion” but that makes no sense at all. Do you really imagine that fossils only appear to be in the rock they are found in, and are “really” in completely different rock?
Even the numbers of fossils are implausibly high for the Flood.
There is more, but the claim that you have good evidence is clearly false. Your Flood geology is an obvious untruth. That is why you try to disparage the evidence - it’s just another attempt to get away from that truth.
quote:Yes, sorry I don't get everything said that needs to be said in one post, and I forget things I've said years ago. Whatever. The thing about the geological phenomena is that most of it is one time events that occurred in the Prehistoric past...
But it is not really about one-time events. Lakes and rivers and seas, earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions. These are things that exist today.
quote:But I also don't want to rest any of this specifically on witnesses either because there are sciences that rely on indirect information, whichis what I was referring to about atomic phenomena and the mostion of the Earth and so on. There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them
And indeed the events are repeatable - in a general rather than exact sense - but that is good enough. Astronomy has it worse, yet that is still accepted as science.
quote:It's not that we can't know SOME things about that past, such as that fossils were once living creatures -- but that was not known to those who originally studied them as they came up with all sorts of outlandish ideas about them because they didn't have anything to compare them too. That's the ONE-TIME-EVENT phenomenon. Even that can be resolved as it was in the case of the fossils by a more reasonable interpretation.
And that is why the Flood was rejected by geology. All the supposed evidence for it had more reasonable interpretations.
quote:t as for explaining the causes of the strata and the fossils, that's where we are getting into territory I'm arguing isn't so easily knowable, because of course I'm objecting to the standard interprreation of it which I consider to be … let's say irrational?
Which only means that you want it to be wrong because it contradicts your beliefs. If you want to see real irrationality, your own arguments are full of it.
quote:Time periods attached to slabs of rock by dating methods that don't even date the rocks themselves.
And yet the methods are quite sound. Even if the rocks are not dated directly the relationships between them (remember the law of superposition?) provide adequate evidence to work out ages from the rocks that are directly dated.
quote:Slabs of rock that couldn't ever possibly form from a landscape in a time period anyway.
So you say, but you’ve never come up with any real problems.
quote:Fossils that form under rare conditions occurring in amazing abundance in these rocks, and sorted BY the rocks too.
Of course the conditions are more common in sone environments than others - and unsurprisingly fossils are more frequently found in rocks formed where favourable conditions would have been more common. And the order is easily explained under the conventional view. It’s your Flood geology that can’t explain it.
quote:That's supposedly evidence of the time periods interpretation but once you see that a rock can't represent a time period the whole idea comes crashing down. And so on.
But Faith you don’t “see” any such thing. You just make up crazy nonsense. And you can’t call that anything but irrational.