Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

It's called "Recombination". Do a wiki search & you'll get more results than you care to read, and nearly all of them are about the biological variety.Either some of these people aren't half as educated as they let on, or they're keeping mum. Granted, the topic's about taboo in high school biology classes; but anyone with college level biology should have some familiarity with it.If mutation was the cause of bacteria gaining resistance, what are the odds of that mutation cropping up? One in tens of billions, at least. But those experiments are readily repeatable. That's because recombination is the cause - not mutation, no way no how.That's why recombination's kept secret to the extent it's practical to do so. Nearly every textbook "example of mutation" is actually an instance of recombination. From peppered moths to the beak length on "Darwin's finches". About the only real mutations they ever talk about that actually mutations are irradiated bugs, and that's just not enough to sell their religion.Now why don't I explain it here in simple layman's terms? Because it's easier for you to look it up yourself, read past the spin (some authors try to put an evolutionist spin on it, just like they do with genetics) and learn what it is. If I were to explain it, I fully expect those who know more about this topic than myself and pretended not to have this knowledge would come out of the woodwork & try to nitpick my explanation. I'd be tempted to call them liars, as the term is accurate and applicable. So I choose to avoid temptation.Anyhow, there is some chance for those who want to have a better discussion. Learn what recombination is for yourself, but try not to waste too much time arguing about it. The bargain basement evolutionist will just repeat the spin or deny that recombination exists. None are prepared to deal with the facts: recombination is a marvelous design feature. And it makes it impossible for mutations to get any grip via "natural selection". Want a taller creature? Recombination can do it in one or two generations! Same for any trait. Mutation is too slow, even if it knew what it was looking for.For those who want to be lazy & not look it up, but still want to believe I'm wrong, please consider: Random mutations by definition aren't readily repeatable. You can't reverse them with selective breeding and bring them back any time you want. Your prized "mutation" examples are nearly all reversible and repeatable. 2 + 2 = ?

I notice you have trouble understanding the conjunction "or". Is English your first language? If so, I see little profit in discussing anything with you, as such misunderstandings rarely occur by accident. If not, please consult your dictionary. I'm sure your language has some equivalent for such a necessary element of communication.I don't expect you'd understand the term "trade secret" either. I never said trained biologists would be kept in the dark. But the general public is never exposed to this information. It's kind of awkward to give a list of phony examples of "mutations" and then turn right around and expose oneself as a liar. Thus it must be omitted from school textbooks and PBS programs, etc.And if you truly are so all-fired involved in biology, maybe you can explain to taz the chances of getting mutations to repeat. We all know he'd just argue with me. I declare that one caught me totally by surprise. If it were possible to die from embarrassment, I'd be concerned for him.For the rest, here's a Spin Recognition Tip: If they try to redefine either "mutation" or "recombination" to make them synonymous, they're up to no good. Mutations are what happens when something goes wrong. Recombination is what happens by design. Tip number 2: It's not "random". You can't randomly mix up DNA and get... well you won't even get life, if you want the truth. It seems random because people haven't figured it all out. Any time they figure out a tiny element of what's going on, they write a paper or a book like those on the list. If it were random, that list wouldn't exist.It starts to give us some perspective when we see the years of hard study by so many persons all trying to piece together a little fraction of the work God did in one day.

quote:

---

I'm detecting a lot of spin here!

​

Recombination is pretty random - where it happens is not fixed at all (and neither the normal mechanisms of mutation or recombination "randomly mix up" DNA). More, recombination is unusual in bacteria because bacteria are haploid - they require a source of additional genetic material before recombination can occur. So what is the evidence that recombination rather than mutation is the source of the resistance ?

---

My inability to predict a grandmaster's moves on the chessboard does not make them random. Your inability to predict where recombination will take place does not make it random.And what are "normal mechanisms of mutation"? How can that which is normal produce abnormality? And if we were to call mutations "normal", what word would we use to designate that which is not mutated?As for bacteria requiring a source of additional genetic material before recombination can occur, I've been informed otherwise by more than one source I consider to be more reliable.And would you really agree with Taz that the same mutation is going to crop up fresh time after time, in spite of enormous odds against it? That right there should be a tip-off that it cannot be a mutation, but must be either the result of an exchange mechanism or recombination. Please try to resist your conditioning.I notice a couple of things. If you had said 'unpredictable' instead of 'random' you would have been correct. If you had said 'most common mechanisms of mutation' instead of 'normal mechanisms of mutation' you would have been accurate. Remedy these, and your post has a lot less potential to mislead. So which post was it that set of the spin detector, mine or yours?

quote:

---

I have no trouble whatsoever in understanding the word "or", but you seem to be struggling to distinguish between valid evidence and ad hominem attacks.

---

So you understood what I wrote, and yet you chose to behave is if you did not. Noted.As for this struggle, I cannot say whether your perception is flawed or your claim that you perceive it is false. I fully expect my opposition to present virtually no valid evidence and plenty of ad hom. I am capable of recognizing patterns, so you needn't worry on that score.

quote:

---

The reference makes a clear distinction between mutation and recombination, there is NO attempt to say the are the same thing, quite the opposite, in fact.

---

Repeated that one 10 times. But just as the word "or" is readily understood; so is the word "some". Now follow closely: Some biologists are evolutionists. Some evolutionists are bargain basement evolutionists. Some bargain basement evolutionists employ the spin method to their writing.You would give the impression that you're very concerned about my education concerning recombination. What makes me so special? The ignorance regarding recombination is a plague hereabouts. How many times have you seen things called "mutations" when you knew they were actually the result of recombination? How many times have you taken the time to correct these errors? And yet you took a considerable amount of time on post #81, when there's no indication at all that I'm confused about this. Indeed, I was the one pointing out that recombination and mutation are two different things!

quote:

---

The information is in the public domain and is available to anyone throught he public library system and the internet. I people want to know more about it they're perfectly free to get the information, however, door-to-door canvassing of the information isn't practical, don't you think? Are you suggesting that every time an article or book is published, it is the responsibility of scientists to carry out the equivalent of neighbourhood leaflet drops? The very fact that they publish their data tends to run counter to your analogy of "trade secret".

---

Explain or deny: recombination is virtually unknown among nonbiologists. The terms "mutation" and "DNA" are so commonplace that anyone who is unfamiliar with them borders on being illiterate. The vast majority of things attributed to mutation are actually the result of normally functioning recombination. There is no effort to correct any of these fallacies; even when they are repeated non-stop in all sorts of "educational" media, including science magazines, TV programs, and school textbooks. Anyone attempting to correct these errors will be zealously opposed.

quote:

---

Which day would this be?

---

If you really tried, I'm confident you could have figured out on which day God invented DNA. It's not a tricky question at all. Were it not for your mocking tone and dubious recent history, I'd gladly answer it. Shoot, I'd answer it anyhow; but I think there's a good chance you or Taz'd want to argue about that too.Bad choice with that quote from the first link, BTW. That fact alone is sufficient to slam the door on Darwinism of all present stripes.Bad choice in another sense on #5. When it says "Natural selection acts on genetic variation that comes from two principal sources: mutation and recombination", this implies that mutation is superior to recombination. The spin is subtle, but it's there. We know from the first source which one is superior, now don't we? Even if you take the two as rough equals, this is still spin. Recombination isn't just a little bigger - it's much, much bigger than mutation. This statement's a lot like saying "There are two exceptionally large objects in the solar system: Jupiter and the Sun".Actually, now that I think about it, I'll bet that among creatures that have other sources of genetic variation, the other sources contribute more than mutation. If so, that statement is out & out misleading. I might look into that if I cared just a little more...Upon review, #10 is probably the best of the lot, but #1 was close. The two snippets compliment each other nicely, from my point of view. I'm tempted to actually follow those links. Nah - with my luck there'd be lies or spin showing up in a paragraph or two. I'm just not in the mood. It's not everywhere one can find straight biology without evolutionism thrown in.