What would be enough proof for a creationist?

So if we don't know where the first piece (first life ? I presume in this case)came from then we can't say anything about what happened to living things after that?If that is your firm position then, for now, you may as well drop the discussion.It would be interesting to see the logic behind that though. Would you elaborate?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 21:43 AM

"if" is part of a logical construction. In this case it seem you are suggesting that it goes like this:1) If we don't know the origin of life then we can't comment on it's subsequent evolution.
2) We don't know the orgin of life.
3) Therefore any idea of the subsequent evolution of life is wrong.I don't see why the first statment is true. I'm asking you to elaborate in detail. You have a very specific question that you want answered. It is the question that we all ask: "Where did it all come from?"That is of great interest to cosmolgists or chemist/biologists of course (depending on what you mean by "first piece" which you still haven't made clear).We don't know. There are many things we don't know. We may or may not answer any given one of the questions that have no answer today.However, I don't understand what that has to do with questions for which we do have very good answers. Would you like to make that clear?

Of course, you can ask the question.My question remains unanswered. What does the lack of knowledge of primal origins have to do with what happens afterward?Don't play little word games, try actually thinking about your answer this time.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2005 11:36 AM

Sorry, I thought better of my post and edited it out. I thought it would be before it was read.One issue here was about "proof" for evolution. I'm asking what the origin of things has to do with proof for evolution. Over and over again, we have to repeat that science says nothing about either the existance or non-existance of God. Many scientists are believers.

You seem to have a bunch of serious misconceptions. You need to know what it is you are critisizing before you jump in, guns blazing. This suggests that each step in evolutution has to be a species jump or something. Or anything with a mutation is a new species.That is utterly, totally wrong!You have mutations that your parents don't carry. We all do. Some may well be beneifial, that doesn't make you a new, incompatible species.What happens is that these changes, which are in all individuals, can gradually over time pile up. Each individual is completely interfertile (same species) with ALL of the individuals alive at the same time as it is. However, if you took an individual and tried to breed it to an individual form 100,000 generations previous they might well not be successful. Or even want to mate (imagine your blind date as a H. eretus ). At each generation there is no problem. What you have described is no an issue it stems from your lack of understanding and that is all. You are correct that genes will get lost in a population under some circumstances. In others they will become"fixed" because of some advantage they confir. This is simply fact. We might need another thread to go over the evidence though."Yellow dye" --- genes are discreet. They do not "water down" your analogy is false. If they confer an advantage they have a certain chance of spreading throughout the population. The guidedance that is supplied is selection.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-02-2005 19:34 AM