The Origin of Novelty

All relationships between extant species reflected in the genetic data points to and is expected by baraminology. You would see closely related nested hierarchies from within baramins (eg human racegroups, genus canis, genus felidae) nearly every modern organism is part of a recent nested hierarchy. Then you would see vast gulfs of genetic differences (eg chimp/human differences of 120 million base pairs) between baramins of similar phenotype. This is what is observed. So I need more evidence than your opinion, that genotypes do not reflect baraminology. How about some links/studies to support your position. surely if baraminology is so wrong, there would be numerous studies that easily contradict the view of recent evolution from baramins. I don't recall you giving me any example of evidence for long term hierarchies. If you could kindly back up your claims with links/studies then we could gain ground in the discussion instead of repeating ourselves.Remember I am not claiming that baraminology is the better empirical view, I believe observations currently fit in with both views. MY argument is against evolutionist assumptions that your view is better, any evidence to show that your view is better than baraminology would be greatly appreciated. It is only because of your overconfidence in the evidence for your position that more evidence is actually required of you. I say both views fit in with observations and neither view can currently contradict the other. You keep making big claims without giving me your links/studies to prove your position. Which particular group of transitional fossils is a problem for my hypothesis? Give me an example so we can see how it contradicts the baramin view.

Just because your common ancestor goes further back in time and involves many more complicated steps to get to modern organisms, does not make your single common ancestor any less unlikely than my recent multiple common ancestors. Your extensive wordplay is trying to place an extra step in baraminology, whereas abiogenesis is no more proven than creationism. Put aside how we have organisms (prokaryote/baramin) and then let's compare parsimony of the two theories on the assumption that life did somehow appear, and on the assumption that multiple creation is no less unlikely than the statistical joke of abiogenesis.Therefore if we put aside theories on origins of life forms (abiogenesis/creation); long term evolution therefore has less parsimony (its a longer more complicated procedure with some processes lacking in evidence). But I've said this already haven't I? And you keep bringing up creation don't you. So let's agree to disagree, I believe the parsimony argument favors baraminology. I could be wrong, but I would assume that the obvious answer is that bats are stronger flyers, better able to handle the extra placental weight. (they fly in "low gear", more strength, less speed). Generally the extra weight would reduce fitness in flying organisms, but because of the extra bones in the bats wings (mammalian "hands") it is stronger in flight, even if less efficient and slower. Birds are vulnerable to exhaustion, relatively lighter in body, proportionately to wing size. They need specialized lungs, emphasizing their vulnerability. You are incorrect, the coral example is mix and matching among specific and yet diverse animals.You also failed to address what I said regarding the mix and matching not being as required as you are emphasizing, I believe your whole point is a strawman argument: I said the following:

I can see how you say this, but even the thought that reduced complexity is the more observable process among fitness enhancing mutations, should lend its own credibility to the theory that life is devolving from complex organisms, rather than evolving from simple organisms. I believe that biological life started 6500 years ago, I have no problem with an old earth. I dispute dating techniques that show fossils in old layers due to empirical reasons, not because of religion.There is a lot of evidence of a worldwide flood at the PT boundary , including the fountains of the great deep opening up, and so that "scientific conclusion" is no longer valid. Please refer to my post 295 in the following thread:
EvC Forum: Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?This particular thread is enough evidence for any observer to see that the theory of evolution is based on circular reasoning and a few weak arguments. I believe I'm more committed to science than those on this forum. I believe in good logic and good points and the search for truth, even if it contradicts my position. How I would love to be challenged by a few good points from a reasonable and logical truth seeker. I love to continuously adjust my view to the truth as I learn it, something I do not see in others. I have been criticized for adapting my views in the past and even on this website, I see this as the correct scientific approach and always take the criticism as a compliment. I wish others would also rapidly adjust their views to the truth, you can find out a lot that way. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

When I say vast differences, I am referring to 120 million base pairs differences, and 83% difference in protein production between humans/chimps. You think you made a point with that example? The claim that a wide range of organisms have retained an exact sequence over 300 million years without mutations or evolving, is ridiculous. The evidence points to recent intelligent design, but I already said that, and we are repeating ourselves. What evidence? The Cytochrome example points to intelligent design and I have noted that your aguments are repetitive and lack supporting evidence. You repeat the same statements yet refuse to back them up. The complete dearth of any decent arguments or evidence against baraminology speaks volumes. Where's the hundreds of links I was expecting that would easily disprove baraminology? Repeating weak points adds no strength to your position. Could you kindly give me a link regarding the evolution of the mammalian jaw. I would like to see why you say that these fossils are a particularly awkward example for me.

An intelligent designer would design the same section in the same manner in all organisms that need that section. Its pretty obvious. Ever thought this so-called "transition" is a mole-like animal? Some moles have lower air-borne hearing ability than both reptiles and mammals, due to their survival being based on ground based hearing (ground vibrations). Thus they are not a transition, their hearing is unique, and designed for the ground. The middle ear is attached to the lower jaw to emphasize vibrations. Thus they have both the independent ossicles of the mammal and also the attachment of the large ossicle to the jawbone.To see this as a transition would deny the fact the hearing is worse than the reptile , there is no hearing progression occurring here at all, but this is a unique organism with unique abilities. Everything else about the anatomy of the so-called transitional Morganucodon is consistent with the behaviour and anatomy of moles, it can't be transitionary unless reptiles underwent a mole phase before evolving into mammals.

Lol, this is so funny, I gave you a cheers. I don't think the moderators are aware of their bias.

This is so true Bolder-dash. That is their main approach on this thread. If evolutionists feel their position is so much more evidence based (which is not a claim I make) then why can they find nothing to contradict creationism?

You make a good point here regarding amplification. This isn't a novel feature, but extra coding genes are certainly a support for the basic processes of your view. I don't like genetic manipulation as proof of natural processes, but if they replicate real processes of nature then fair enough the information can be useful. Just for my information can you supply a link, thanks. The fact that you freely admit that the high copy numbers could have been there already, without showing proof that they were not there in the original population, kinda makes your whole point redundant. The same logic applies to AMY1. Another good point. But if there was original variety then this would explain it (say 4 DNA strands, each containing a different copy number) . And another explantion is that there are certain places in the genome that are extremely vulnerable to rapid mutations. ie immunity and antibody genes. Whether these are duplications or deletions, the changes are known to occur rapidly where there are high copy numbers. I'm open to the math if you would like to delve further into the accuracy of your point, and back it up with actual mutation rates etc. I feel you need more scientific backing for your claims here:
1) You seem to hint that an intelligent designer didn't do a good job, I would like to see how man can improve an organisms fitness in nature through artificial processes, or artificial proteins.
2) You seem to hint that the antifreeze protein of our fish example is less functional because its a recent duplication that looks like other genes. Could you back up your example by showing me in what manner this near-matching gene is only a recent and less efficient evolved gene. IF its functioning at perfect efficiency this would speak of an intelligent designer, if its in the process of recent evolving (some natural "accident" that changed the gene) it would be producing some useless proteins as well as adding a new recent function that is in its infancy of potential improvements in that gene. Explain exactly how the gene supports your position of recent duplication.
3) How much "like a frog" does it look? How many base pairs are in the same sequence? Could you backup your statement with evidence for this close match you are claiming
4) How dissimilar are the functions? If the functions of both genes are similar, this would account for the similarity in design.I'm just needing evidence for your claims that the fish looks evolved rather than looks designed like that. 3 million base pairs appeared in perfect order out of a pool of chemicals, even though those chemicals are not found in non-biological nature? hahahahaha you living in a fantasy world and you dare to point at creationists?? I love it when evolutionists bring up the "supernatural beings" are illogical point of view; I have more ammunition than you guys. Abiogenesis involves even more faith without evidence than believing in a creator ever did. At least from my internal perspective, I have answered prayers to back up my view, do you have adenine forming in nature without biology? Did nature give you an inspired book describing how adenine can create itself? Many logical people prefer an inspired book than a duh uh it all created itself , uh I dunno.wikipedia:" Both adenine and guanine are derived from the nucleotide inosine monophosphate (IMP), which is synthesised on a pre-existing ribose phosphate through a complex pathway using atoms from the amino acids glycine, glutamine, and aspartic acid, as well as fused with the enzyme tetrahydrofolate."You have a vicious circle to explain, you NEED biological life to create biological life, just that in itself points to a designer. I'm not criticizing atheists for having faith, I think its quite sweet of them. I just feel its incredibly ironic that those atheists who believe in abiogenesis are normally the most vocal about being anti-faith and pro-science, the hypocrisy is amazing to say the least when in essence they need tons of faith in a process unknown to them.Its impossible to create adenine without a biological process, and its impossible to have a biological process without adenine, so a designer is all you left with. Please explain your "plausible and realistic" process of adenine creation. An intelligent designer is the intelligent choice.I need links again, if you insist on saying abiogenesis is more plausible than creation prove it! I prefer to leave abiogenesis and creation out of discussions and look at current genomes and see if they are a reflection of baramins or a long term common ancestor. I feel that's a true discussion on evolution instead of origins, but if you guys keep insisting on discussing origins, bring it on!Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I do agree with you, and have repeatedly tried to avoid a discussion of origins on this thread, but evolutionists repeatedly bring it up. It just seems a little hypocritical that evolutionists would like to discuss baramin origins in this thread, and yet not allow creationists do discuss common ancestor origins. If anyone wishes to mock the logic of a Creator, I will mock the logic of abiogenesis, not as revenge, just because abiogenesis is a weaker theory on the origin of life. I would way prefer not to discuss origins, if others can hold back too.

That's only because all the evidence against creationism presented so far, points TO creationism. This shows strength in a position when you can confidently wait for the best arguments against your position, knowing it will win every time. Not meaning to stir, but at the moment the two positions seem pretty even on an empirical level, despite the traditional over-confidence of evolutionists. Its also hard to falsify the evolutionist position, so I do sympathize with you on the frustration of knowing you right, yet unable to have 100% proof.

My point is that when taxonomists are looking for a sequence (beaks getting smaller, beaks getting larger, whatever they have in mind) its easy for them to find such a sequence because of the numbers of extinct species. This does not mean they are right, just because they are able to place a few fossil skeletons in an order of their preconceived growth of a feature. Those fossils would have to have a clear and dated sequence to have any meaning. Otherwise they may just be placing a mole between a reptile and a mammal and making HUGE conclusions about the evolving of hearing and the mammal jaw. (its funny really) This too is really funny. I guess two cars have a common ancestor because they have wheels and an engine. especially when you compare them with jetskis, yes surely then the two sedans have a more recent common ancestor. Tell that to the manufacturer, that you have perfect proof that cars are evolved because some designs are similar.An intelligent designer would obviously overlap design the more similar the function (intelligent mammals that stand upright and use their hands extensively, and have long life-spans). Its the most correct conclusion to assume more similar DNA the more similar the function, anything else would be illogical.A believer in ID expects to see animals designed in groupings and then with some recent nested hierarchies since the baramin was created. Its EXACTLY what we would look for. Someone dares to do the math. Yes 100 mutations would fit, 50 mutations would not. I heard its more like between 10 and 30 mutations that are actually detected through less biased testing, have you got any proof for 100 mutations per generation? Normally the 100 mutations figure is gained through evolutionist circular reasoning, the chimp has 120 million differences, and they diverged about 600000 generations ago, which means 1.2 million generations of the two species. 120 million divided by 1.2 million is 100 mutations per generation. But that is circular reasoning, there are more accurate ways of getting to actual current mutation rates without evolutionary assumptions.ID explains the differences, 120 million differences were created like that, with a few mutations since. I am happy with radiometric dating, not for accurate dates, but relative dates. If anyone wants to create an accurate sequence they should date the sequence, otherwise they just playing silly fantasy games by placing fossils in an order of features. Anyone can put modern skeletons in an order of enlarged features. This does not prove evoltuion in any manner.

You evolutionists confuse the two topics. You point to the source of life all the time, instead of seeing if current biology is a reflection of baramins, or a long-term evolution from a common ancestor. You avoid the real empirical debate, by reverting to the "creation is stupid" argument. And then freely want to include creationism in your common ancestor argument when it suits you. Either we are discussing evolution , or origins. In this thread the discussion is evolution, not origins. A nested hierarchy from recent baramins is exactly what you would expect from recent baramins. Groups of baramins designed similarly because of their similar functions is exactly what you would expect from an ID. Can you see that, even though you do not agree? Birds are designed for speed flight, not power flight. The feathers, the bones, the eggs, the lungs, all help with this. If you start playing with the whole balance, you get a problem. Each category (mammals/reptiles/birds) has a well balanced set of features.This is only logical from an ID view.

Not at all, this is a science forum. Any so-called evidence will be looked at and accepted if true. A few fossils placed in an order showing increasing enhanced features means nothing.

If ID is true, it would show groups of organisms with similar design (cars are designed in ranges), and then nested hierarchies showing recent evolution from recent baramins. Both these are observed. Evoltuionists misunderstand the similar designs as further long-term nested hierarchies. When I say there has been evolution from recent baramins, I'm referring to those types of nested hierarchies seen by evolutionists as occurring in the last 100 000 years. Differences in racegroups, differences between dogs and wolves, between lions and tigers, between cats and wildcats, between crocodiles and dwarf crocodiles. These small differences represent slight changes from a recent baramins.The type of differences seen between chimps and humans are much larger (120 million base pairs). These are primarily design differences, with very few mutations. Humans and chimps are definitely different baramins. Wolves and dogs are definitely the same baramin. If there is more than 0.5 % difference in base pairs, you can be pretty certain its a different baramin. That's the theory, I've seen nothing to contradict this theory.

No, I am not crazy, you may have misunderstood me, and thought I was saying large parts of the different genomes had exact sequences, I was saying no such thing. I was basing my statement that exact sequences have been preserved over millions of years on the following comments:http://chemistry.umeche.maine.edu/CHY431/Evolve2.html
"The sequences are remarkably similar across species, especially at certain positions. For example, EVERY ONE has a phenylalanine at position 10, a histidine at 18, a proline at 30 and a methionine at 80. Clearly, evolution selects against any change at these positions."You see That! see it? EXACT sequences are contained within REMARKABLY SIMILAR sequences between COMPLETELY DIFFERENT species for over 300 million years according to evolution. ID makes a lot more sense. Boring! Ive refuted this argument so many times in this thread. My answer is obviously ignored every time, but it logically stands anyway. A logical intelligent designer would repeat designs when there are similar design requirements. This points towards ID, the alternative is a stupid designer that refuses to repeat good designs when there are similar needs. I don't believe in Stupid Design (SD), I believe in Intelligent Design (ID), therefore repeat designs conform to the ID view, even if it also conforms to the evolving view.
The fact that there is some interchangeability between slightly similar designs, similarly points to both theories.Any evidence for the one, is not evidence against the other, there is no mutual exclusivity in this debate, currently the evidence favors both views, they are two good competing theories that fit all current evidence. (Except for a few embarassments like human mutation rates over 6 million years being too slow, exact sequences being maintained for 300 million years without mutating at all etc).Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.