Questions Creationists Never Answer

What, in you flood model, is "taking them away from their roots and soil?" They may be light, but they're also rooted into the soil, so they don't tend to float during flooding. No, they're not all near the top. That's the thing.There's plenty of plants found throughout the fossil record, top to bottom. The problem for creationists is that the kinds of plants you find changes as you go up or down the fossil column, and they never give any explanation for why this is the case. Flowers and grasses at the top, ferns throughout. A pattern that evolution explains but Noah's flood does not.Paleobotany falsified the world-wide flood.

It's defined, but the definition is circular. Creationists posit that God originally created the animals in separate groups called "kinds", and then when you ask them what that means, they tell you that a kind is one of the original groups of animals that God created.Perfectly circular, and thus, perfectly meaningless. A useful definition of "kind" would, among other things, suggest a criteria for determining if two similar animals are in the same kind, or in two different kinds.No creationist to date has been able to do this. I notice too that you assert that "kinds" has some well-known definition - but you fail to tell us what that definition is. If the idea of "kinds" has merit, then you'll be able to devise at least some kind of metric for distinguishing kinds, as evolutionists have for "species." That no "baraminologist" (is there even such a person?) has even tried to do so is highly suggestive.

No, it turns out that fossil grass pollen is quite common indeed - right at the top. Totally consistent with evolution; a devastating contradiction of creationism.In regards to sorting - in the fossil record, none of the really heavy objects, the large animals, are at the very bottom of the record. They're all in the middle-to-top area, reflecting again a position consistent with evolution, but totally contradictory to flood-creationism accounts.

I did. Didn't answer my questions. "No world-wide nonconformity"? I'm not sure what you mean. The very fact that the column has no world wide conformity at all is how we know that it's not the product of one big flood. Sorry, but no. I'm simply pointing out how the flood as you've defined it is not consistent with any of the evidence that we observe.

Well, no, it's not. What has been scientifically proven is that all genomes are ultimately decended from a single ancestor; if there are any original "kinds" at all, there's only one - the common ancestor.There's no evidence at all of some kind of limited mutability of genomes; the genomes of organisms are infinitely mutable through evolutionary mechanisms.

Well, wait, now. Concise? You're talking about analyses of the genomes of every living thing on Earth. And you expect that to be concise?I recognize that you're not equipped to deal with a massive amount of highly technical scientific research, which is why you're asking for something concise. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that, in fact, you do need technical knowledge in bioinformatics to understand or rebut the proof that all genomes ultimately decended from a common ancestor? Why do you suppose it is that scientists have to go to school for years to perform and understand this sort of research?What made you think that you could simply dismiss all that work and proof simply because you're not equipped to understand it? Or are you trying to assert that evolution is false because the massive amount of proof for it can't be simply boiled down into a few paragraphs on a website? "Argument from too much proof." That's a new one, even among creationists. Untrue. We do know that all of those alternate alleles are the product of mutations on prior alleles; we've observed the process of mutation give rise to new, advantageous alleles both in the lab and in the wild.

I've got plenty of proof. What's your background in bioinformatics? Not so. The initial variability between individuals in regards to sugar content was a result of random mutation.Selection is not mutation, you're correct. But selection is meaningless on clones. The reason that there is variation within a population to begin with is the result of random mutation.

Am I?Do you know how many mutations you have? I can tell you (within a certain bound.) Do you know?Mutations happen considerably more often than you seem prepared to admit. If you're not aware of this, then you lack the background in genetics to intelligently address the issue. No, there's not. All heritable variation within a population is ultimately related to genetic alleles; the only source of new alleles is mutation. That's accepted science. (By everyone but you, apparently.)Can you provide your reference for "every biologist in the world"? No known limits. Sorry, but you're simply wrong. There is no scientific evidence for any sort of "limit" to variation within a population. Mutation constitutes a limitless source of genetic novelty. Again, this is accepted science.

What's the evidence for your assertion that intelligent self-awareness in humans is genetic?