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.
I felt there was little point in dealing with your "repeating the spin" since the rest of my post had dealt with that.
If you actually bother to look at the references I provided in my list, or ever read the article I linked to, you will see that there is NO attempt to redefine recombination or mutation to make them synonomous. As a few examples of why you're barking up the wrong tree can I recommend the following reading material.
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.
Mutations in the DNA mismatch repair system increase mutation and recombination. They may thereby promote the genetic divergence that underlies speciation, after which the reacquisition of a functional repair system may sustain that divergence by creating a barrier to recombination. ........ These results demonstrate the establishment of an incipient genetic barrier between formerly identical lines, and they support a model in which the mismatch repair system can influence speciation dynamics through its simultaneous effects on mutation and recombination.
Just a moment...
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.
Recombination occurs through both homologous crossing over and homologous gene conversion during meiosis. The contribution of recombination relative to mutation is expected to be dramatically reduced in inbreeding organisms.
NCBI
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mutation, Recombination, and Reassortment as Evolutionary Forces
Mutation, recombination and segment reassortment contribute to the evolution of most DNA and RNA viruses. Sometimes one form of genetic change appears to be more prominent than another, and sometimes the concerted action of recombination or reassortment with mutation is apparent, (i.e., antigenic drift in influenza virus, following the origin of a new antigenic type through reassortment) [snip] Reference to a diagram in the text[snip].
Fields, B.N., Knipe, D. M. & Howley, P.M.(2007) Fields Virology 5th Edition, Volume 1, p 397 (Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, publishers; ISBN0781760607)
Shortened link for RAZD
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.
Like mutation, recombination is an important source of new variation for natural selection to work upon. However, also like mutation, recombination places a genetic load upon the population.
Evolution - A-Z - Recombination
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.
Recombination, therefore can be a lot faster than waiting for mutation to assemble the good, AB chromosome
(here AB is referring to the terminology used earlier in the section, my addition)
Shortened link to source
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.
This lists selected highlights from the first 30 results returned by Google on a search which resulted in about "2, 380,000 results" according to Google.
To summarise, I have demonstrated that there is no attempt to redefine "mutation" and "recombination" to mean the same thing, in fact there is a clear attempt to specifically say that they are different. So your Spin Recognition Tip
If they try to redefine either "mutation" or "recombination" to make them synonymous, they're up to no good.
is completely irrelevant.
My previous post dealt with the suggestion that evolutionists would deny that recombination exists and showed that this was, in fact not the case and a totally baseless accusation on your part (I provided evidence for you to look at). So your assertion that
The bargain basement evolutionist will just repeat the spin or deny that recombination exists.
has been refuted with regard to both "repeat[ing] the spin" AND "deny[ing] that recombination exists.
You say
But the general public is never exposed to this information.
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".
Those who wish to engage in genuine debate on the subject and who do so from a position of informed opinion tend not to make the howlers you have.
You say
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
Which day would this be? Is it the
Third day: God commands the waters to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command). "Earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees
or is it the
Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command); He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
Or is it the
Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command); He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates Man and Woman in His "image" and "likeness"
Which one constitutes the "one day"? Seems to me that life was created over three separate days, according to Genesis Ch 1:1 - 2:3. Here's a link to a Wiki digest of the relevant passage
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
Or how about what Creationwiki has to say about it?
The account in Genesis 1 meticulously describes the creation including what was specifically made on each day. Although many people argue that the days of the creation week should not be taken literally, the events are described in terms that are correlated with definitions of time. Since God created time and language, it is reasonable to assume that the most straightforward reading of these passages should take place.
It then goes on to say
Day 3 - God created dry land and plants.
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day. Genesis 1:9-13
Day 5 - God created sea creatures and birds.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning”the fifth day. Genesis 1:20-23
Day 6 - God created land animals and man.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:24-27
http://creationwiki.net/Day_of_creation as retrieved on 23 Jan 2008 04:31:46 GMT
I was unable to lift the information directly from the Creationwiki site as it is experiencing technical difficulties, but the above was cached from creationwiki on 23.1.08 as the link makes clear. Again, it took him 3 separate days, not the one day you claim.
How about The Institute for Creation Reearch? Well, they don't actually say anything about it that I can find, although they have plenty of stuff they want to sell me!
Answers in Genesis provided a link to a page at another site
ORDER OF BIBLICAL CREATIONWhat is the order of events in the biblical Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
and this page agrees that days 3, 5 and 6 were the days on which life-forms were created. Again, it took three days.
Can I have a substantive reply this time instead of
ad hominem remarks?
To Admin If you feel this should be split into two separate posts, let me know and I'll happily oblige.
Edited by Trixie, : Shortened link for RAZD, hope it works
™ Version 4.2