Faith,
First off, I wanted to apologize up front for having to address admin issues twice in the same morning. If I had more time, and if this thread was going a little slower, I could have been more careful. I'm struggling to keep up. So, I apologize for posting twice, that may be discouraging.
Nonetheless, the issues I see are really important to me, and I want to be REALLY clear and consistent with these things. So please bear with me and look through the two issues I'm bringing up below:
First, I think you're really starting to approach things from a YEC perspective. That can't happen here. I saw this a bit in the post I brought up before, but there are two more posts that I ran across that made me really feel that things are moving in the wrong direction:
http://< !--UB
EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be true -->
http://EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be truehttp://< !--UB
EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be true -->
http://EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be true
As usual, I will run on about why this is critical:
In the future, YECs may be able to come up with a set of postulates or theorems that explain all scientific data and also are consistent with the Bible. There are no such set of postulates.
Furthermore, even if that happens, current scientific theory is not invalidated in any way--only new observations can do that. All that will provide is a vialbe alternative.
The point is, all discussion here is whether or not current scientific theory can explain all of the current empirical evidence and, if so, how? Discussing alternative frameworks is outside of the scope of this thread.
I was disappointed to see that you're starting to use this thread as a way to think about alternative hypotheses. Your job, in this thread, is exactly what I said above: to discuss whether or not current scientific theory can explain all of the current empirical evidence and, if so, how. In these threads, current scientific theory stands, or falls, on it's own. We're going to use OTHER threads to discuss alternative approaches.
Second, I'm also becoming worried about the way you're wording things and how you're thinking about things here:
http://< !--UB
EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be true -->
http://EvC Forum: Some mutations sound too good to be true
You are claiming that mutation alone increases genetic variability but only over great great periods of time -- in 10,000 years it has not rescued the cheetah
It is OK to use words to distance yourself from this "claim", because you feel there is an inconsistency (that you describe lower in the post). The inconsistency is based on two pieces of data and / or scientific theory.
This is a good, logical approach in my eyes.
and you consider 10,000 years to be a small period of time
When discussing science, we ALL consider 10,000 years to be a small period of time. There are no young earth thinkers in science. To honestly think through the science, Faith, you have to reason using the conclusions found by science.
By distancing yourself from this conclusion, you're moving away from scientific discussion (in my eyes). When we discuss science, we ALL use the same basic conclusions (theories). Even if it has to be an "intellectual game" for you, you need to do this.
It may seem nitpicky, but even if I'm in some way wrong, it's important: this is one of the ways I've seen things move quickly away from scientific discussion and into verbal wars about young-earth vs. old-earth. And I know that's the last thing any of us want--more pointless verbal wars. It really does take a high level of vigilence in the words that are written. But it is critically important.
Faith, please address any inquiries / comments about the contents of this post to the "General discussion..." thread linked below. We can talk about any of this there.
Thanks.
™ Version 4.2