A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

You are terrifically confused, but aggressively sure you are right about what you're wrong about.What you are calling the "scientific facts" I'm supposedly "admitting I can't explain" are what I've been saying are relevant to the ToE but not to Creationism. That being the case there is nothing for me to explain.And you can stop with the ridiculous meaningless commentary on what I said about the creation being God's doing. Both systems need a beginning point and for both systems it doesn't have to be discussed. The ToE has a Universal Common Ancestor though it's a tentative concept and not discussed in relation to evolution itself. Same with Creation. It begins with God creating separate Kinds but after that, AS I SAID, the discussion is about the natural phenomena that follow.I understand that everybody's mind is so enveloped in evolutionism it's hard to think in creationism terms.

Nested hierarchies are no doubt essential to the ToE, but biology I doubt it. And RAZD is the one who argues it, but he usually argues a hundred things in one long post. There's a ton of stuff I ignore that's posted here if I don't see its relevance or it doesn't make sense. I have no ambition to learn all the stuff that gets posted here, I have a few pretty circumscribed areas that I pay attention to. But it's nice when at least something is coherent.Look, I have NEVER even commented on nested hierarchies before that I recall, so you can stop with how I always say it doesn't matter. I'm NOW saying it doesn't matter because of how it's come up. And I think I'm probably going to continue with that point of view but we'll see. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, "facts" that derive from, and are given in support of, the ToE and are NOT relevant to the Creation model are NOT facts I have to deal with. All the stuff about mutations which are assumed to drive evolution is meaningless in the context of the creation model.

I think you've got ringo's misunderstanding about my comments about mutations mixed up with the nested hierarchy discussion somehow.Anyway, the nested hierarchy is a way of organizing the Linnaean system and since he developed his system before the ToE came along it's certainly relevant to Creationism. Classifying all living things is something a creationist would do.The idea that it proves relatedness from one to another, i.e. common descent, is what's in question.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No.

I don't recall Linnaeus arranging his system as nested hierarchies. If he did please show me.

Did Linnaeus arrange his system as nested hierarchy?

I've seen that chart many times and it is vey hard to read even zoomed to the max but I don't see how it shows a nested hierarchy?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Everything in the quote box refers to the Creation.And my argument is that there were TWO alleles per gene on the ark, and no more were ever needed nor are they needed now, to vary each Kind into all the different varieties..

Saying it's not relevant to the creation model is not the same thing as saying I can't explain it. I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything.

Yes, a lot of mutations have arisen. Most of them doing nothing at all. And your point is?

Yes, at least non-deleterious, meaning neutral, don't change the phenotype. In the creation model they are simply mistakes that fortunately for the most part don't cause any harm.

After you've posted it it's probably best not to break it up.But I'm having the usual problem with the glaring white diagrams. I'll see if I can improve the situation by copying it all into Word.ABE: I don't know how to make them easier to see.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can't get "patterns of common ancestry" from random mutations.

Sorry, I'm going to wait for RAZD to continue this discussion.