Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

OK, I get it.But actually. I THINK I read somewhere that there is no way to save the cheetah from its plight of allelic starvation even by artificial insemination, or something like that, having to do with the condition of the genome itself preventing it from recombining. This is all very vague in my mind though.

It doesn't matter what caused the bottleneck, human or otherwise, the genetic situation demonstrates how the genetic material reacts under such extreme circumstances.

Honestly Ringo, it is very hard to keep track of what you think you're talking about. What ARE you talking about. Races or varieties is exactly what *I* was talking about. So? How would you know anyway? Who says there are such enormous differences among them? They're all cats. Big kitties, little kitties, yellow, black and spotted kitties. Well, I only have the vaguest idea of the genetics involved; I just figured that although whole races were killed, all the alleles aren't necessarily killed, but this is just vague musing on my part. Most alleles would have died of course. Of course. The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood.

OK, no problem It simply follows from everything I've said here so far. It's nothing new. When I talked about the gradual playing out of the genome, this was implied. mjfloresta has been arguing along the same lines. It follows from the creationist model. There's apparently a misunderstanding somewhere. The idea is that the playing out of the genome, or "speciation," continues, but with less variability to work from, so it has slowed down.

The cheetah's bottleneck was probably fairly recent (contrary to some evo guesses), after the animal was already genetically defined, leaving it with very little genetic variability. The bottleneck of the Flood killed a lot of DNA, though, and I would say if you want evidence look at the junk DNA. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well argued. The claims for relatedness even among human beings based on DNA are not as cut and dried as so many claim who think DNA proves human-chimp relatedness beyond a doubt.

We're happy with the one that is shown. It demonstrates the flood quite well. Well, polystrate trees and the like have been found but always get explained away. In fact lots of examples that validate the flood and contradict the ToE have been found but evos just rationalize them away, against logic but with a lot of aggression. So whatever we find is going to meet with the same treatment.

It is generally understood to be formerly functioning, no-longer-functioning DNA. Suggests former genetic potentials in all creatures that are no longer there. Why? Looks to me to be the reverse. Why do you say "extra?" It's understood to be former DNA, once-functioning DNA. Yes, apparently mutations continue to occur even to the pseudogenes. Their not being phenotypically represented means they're nonfunctioning, dead. 1) It's hard to see how completely useless mutations in nonfunctioning DNA that make no phenotypic difference offer any genetic variability whatever; and2) As a creationist I don't believe mutations have anything to do with normal variation, although I'm still open to the possibility of a slight contribution -- only I haven't seen it yet. I can't imagine where you get such an idea. What is your reasoning? Maybe we do. Nobody knows what the original length was. But it is interesting that all that dead DNA continues to be retained although it's useless. Edited by Faith, : they're to theirEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Obviously the dating of Egyptian civilization is wrong.And as mjf said, there's a TON of evidence of a worldwide flood in the worldwide myths about it. You don't get all those cultures agreeing on a tale like that without reality behind it. Oh please, jar, do stop bothering with us.

=Thus confirming what creationists know, that mutations do almost nothing but destroy. Um, the Law of Probability? Maybe one or two will stagger again to life from time to time, like Frankenstein's monster, probably only to contribute another unpleasant genetic disease to the mix. I think it's the number of alleles available in a population, or perhaps as well in the individual genome itself back in the beginning. Well, I think this is happening. I don't know how we'd "see" it since we can't compare anything with the situation 4500 years ago let alone 6000. There's still a lot of variability, you understand, so that variation continues, so I don't know how you would recognize this trend. But yes, the cheetah is the extreme expression of this very loss of difference. I would suspect that the siblings of a two-parent family showed less obvious similarities a few thousand years ago than they do now thanks to greater genetic options, and so would their cousins and so on out.But more important, with such a decrease I would expect to see what we do see, a general increase in genetic diseases, and vulnerability to extinction in many species. Yes, that is what the ToE says, but in actual fact it is not what happens. Speciation is always gained at the expense of genetic variability, through the loss of some alleles as others are brought to phenotypic expression, and I haven't yet seen any evidence that mutation alters this fact one iota.{edit: Correction: When we do see differences, we also see reduction in genetic variability. That's the point. It's hard to get this expressed properly and it's sometimes hard to follow what you are saying.} Well, as a matter of fact that IS what we see. We have what, some 1-to-2% functioning DNA left, all the rest being dead DNA? This is the same thing as saying that DNA is drastically reduced from its former condition. Drastically. Can you show any examples of junk DNA being brought back to useful functioning life by the way? Well, I do think that ultimately we will run out of DNA, due to deleterious mutations and death in general. Yes, that's true, but most seem to believe it is junk. And yes, we are still functioning humans, though our lifespan is much shorter than before the flood and even for some time afterward, and we are vulnerable to all kinds of diseases which seem to be increasing all the time. Leftovers from what? I know that evolution interprets it as the remnants of all the evolutionary changes in the past that have been transcended by new adaptations. Well, why in junk DNA? In functioning DNA I'd have no problem agreeing with you, but what's the evidence that any change to junk DNA makes any real difference? Yeah, but what's the nature of the change? From what I've read the mutations there don't produce functioning DNA.Edited by Faith, : correct quote box codeEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Such normal experience of flooding would work against the retention of a myth about a worldwide flood; it would be too common an experience for them to make a big deal out of it. Periodic flooding would more likely produce stories about cyclical disasters.The worldwide existence of versions of this story is definitely evidence for the same flood that the Bible story presents. You wish, but that's simply a debunking interpretation based on a refusal to believe a worldwide flood occurred, which is what the myths actually support.Besides, it seems to me if the Black Sea flooded, the Dardanelles, the Bosporus, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea would also have flooded, they being interconnected, as a rise in level would have flooded out the narrow land areas between these bodies of water; and if the Mediterranean flooded, that would mean the oceans had flooded and there you have it anyway. Well, don't get pedantically hung up on terminology. The worldwide occurrence of these stories, however they should be classified, is the important thing. Yes, such stories are usually exaggerated and embellished in a variety of ways, but their theme makes them good evidence along with the Biblical story which presents the true facts. Actually, no, it's a decent argument. Nothing wrong with it at all.But let's get back to hypermicroevolution as we've begun to stray off topic. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Must have missed it. Empty? Too bad I didn't see it. Sounds like the usual official debunkery to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, the truth is that the alternative interpretations are a pathetically jerryrigged bunch, and we creationists are trying our best to break the spell they have on so many, but alas, the desire to do away with the God of the Bible and affirm our animal nature seems to exert a remarkable influence. The oceans are stratified by temperature, and traversed by a variety of currents. The action of these plus wave action plus the habit creatures have of flocking together plus the fact that it is marine life that is on the bottom and land life doesn't appear until the upper strata, are sufficient explanation for the sorting. Yes I do. We assume natural habitat explains a lot of the sorting, and especially the closer grouping together under the threat of the rising flood waters. And I'm not so sure some of these groups aren't found in the same layers, since the layers are defined by content in different parts of the planet, so some of the sorting may be simply the function of biased defintion. A good idea I think overall, if there were enough geologically minded creationists for the job. I'm not sure about the funding or the organizational resources. Or that anyone knows where to look for evidence either. Why would we know that? My your imagination is charming. But most of the current evidence is quite good for the Flood. Beds of jumbled up dinosaurs for instance demonstrate massive sudden death. Most likely most human settlements were simply completely washed away, destroyed, and human remains simply rotted. Few fossils to be expected there. I'm too old and not sufficiently scientifically minded, but I'd love it if a legion of young creationists would do the job.Oh but I do trust evolutionists to find the stuff eventually, I just don't trust their interpretations. How many creationists who believe in the flood who are also trained geologists do you think exist? Certainly if God would like to bestow a few $billion on me I'd jump at the chance to fund such a thing. I'd fund laboratories and give grants to the most promising young creationist scientists and THEN we'd see some action.

I don't see why they would be. Yes. I'm sure a single simian would have sufficed for that group. How do you know this? Just guessing obviously. The main difference is size. Giantism even still happens anomalously in human beings. May very well mean there were races of giants a few millennia ago. As the Bible suggests. Probably more before the Flood. No reason a great variety of sizes wouldn't be normal variations in the cat family. In fact aren't there some giant types of animals in the fossil record that are much smaller in their modern living forms? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, a few considerations here.How big a population of Biblical creationists do you think there is for starters?What percentage of any population has science aptitude?What percentage of working geologists get interesting research jobs as opposed to jobs they take for the purpose of supporting the family, in the oil industry or the like?Where is this money coming from to recruit them?How do you expect them to be able to avoid having to work within the evolutionist paradigm on most jobs?It's not that creationist geologists don't exist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.