A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

It follows from my model which is different from yours.

Where is the evidence supporting your model?

Evidence doesn't follow from a model. Models are constructed to fit evidence.

End of your nose? Apart from the fact that it says it was a mutation? Several times.

All changes in DNA are called mutations by eve-os, that's not evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We have the evidence demonstrating that the differences between genomes is due to mutations. You have yet to rebut this evidence.

Where is the evidence supporting yours? Far as I can tell it's just a lot of supposition. Evolutionism assumes mutations everywhere, even though another interpretation would work as well or better.

You keep SAYING you have evidence but that's all, just saying it. You simply call the many differences between genomes mutations, you don't prove it and you can't prove it. And the bizarre way you misinterpret the creationist idea of genomes unique to different creatures certainly suggests you wouldn't be able to recognize anything that contradicted your theory that all differences are due to mutations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is in posts 63, 114, and 122.

Posts 63, 114, and 122. It proves beyond any doubt that differences between genomes is due to the same natural processes that we observe creating mutations in living populations. You have yet to rebut this evidence.

What kind of evidence might you be looking for? How can this intricate ocean of Earth's DNA chemistry *not* change. So changes happened, yes?

I'm sorry, that's just another assertion and of course all the "evidence" in those posts is in blinding white charts I can't begin to read. And you do say very strange things that convince me you couldn't see evidence against mutations anyway. Your thinking is locked into mutations so tightly you can't think any other way and I have no reason to believe anything you call "evidence."

So you haven't even looked at the evidence that was presented but you're perfectly ready to declare that there is none.

I've asked for any evidence that can change the structure of a genome, but all mutations can do is change what's IN the genome, change one allele into another, but alleles determine traits that belong to the creature the genome belongs to. There is no way you are going to get a chimp genome to lengthen and straighten the legs, nd make feet out of those weird handlike "feet," shorten the arms and torso, straighten the spine, pull the head back onto the neck and remake the skull. You'll actually say "why not?" and all I can do is roll my eyes.All I see is assumptions that the differences between apes, such as chimps, and humans, are nothing but mutations. I see HUGE differences, which I spelled out earlier, between chimps and humans, but eve-ohs actually think the body structure is similar. I find that an outrageous error in thinking. I see just about NOTHING similar between chimps and humans except the stick figures you can make from them. And then Taq says the most bizarre things about how God would have had to use mutations or something like that and I know we're in Never-Never Land and nothing is ever going to make sense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's evidence, not an assertion. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. You owe me a new irony meter for the one you just broke.You just got done telling me that you can't even look at the evidence for mutations, and then have the audacity of accusing me of ignoring evidence. So says the person who can't even look at the evidence for mutations. You are projecting.