Summations Only

No, I didn't say that nor anything like that. We weren't even talking about speciation. You had claimed the only differences between parents and offspring are due to recombination, completely forgetting about mutation.But given that you did mention speciation, you can't possibly be unaware that you're characterizing it incorrectly, because people have defined it for you. Speciation only requires that the new population be largely unable to mate with the original population. If you'd paused to think about this for a moment you would have immediately realized that new species don't have "totally different attributes" from the original species. For example, there are probably 20 or 30 different species of chipmunk, none of which have "totally different attributes." Mutations fall into three categories, neutral, deleterious and beneficial, but you knew this already, right? You're just playing dumb again. We already know how unreliable your quotes are, and anyway, they don't really fit the context, do they. Which is what happens when you're incapable of composing effective responses on your own and so must rely on cut-n-pasting whatever quotes you can find that you think might be applicable.By the way, your last quote appears to be not an expert but an IDist. He cites Behe, Dembski, Meyer and Remine, and his paper, though giving the external appearance of having been published in a journal, is apparently available nowhere but at his own personal website, not even at Research Signpost, the supposed publisher.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Change font size of subtitle, and the subtitle itself.

Sure, but that is a very big number. In the case of the 3 billion base human genome, that would be 4 to the 3 billionth power. The major mechanisms are random mutation, natural selection, and speciation. Both gradualism and PE are the result of those same mechanisms.

If you had actually studied "Origins of Species" as you seemed to imply earlier in the thread, you would have known that evolution is descent with modification. New species are modified versions of what came before them, not something totally different. Our arms are modified mammal limbs, which are modified reptile limbs, and those reptile limbs are modified fish fins. All modifications, not something entirely new. If you take the chimp genome and add 40 million mutations along with recombination events, you get the human genome. Reality shows that you are wrong. Macroevolution is when one population splits into two and starts to accumulate different point mutations and indels. Every difference seen between the human and chimp genome is consistent with point mutations, recombination, and indel events.Edited by Admin, : Fix subtitle font size.

That's odd. I don't see the words 'total lack of evolution' anywhere in your piece.Please try again.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

The fossil record shows ample evidence for the evolution of fossils and fossil communities through time. That is why we don't see elephants in the Cambrian, etc. What evidence is that?You actually have evidence for magic?

Kinda lacks a few details, eh?If you wrote news articles, you'e be looking for a new job.Okay, so, you have this 'god', who has superhero powers. What evidence do you have for God? How does he/she/it create life? Is there some kind of magic wand? When and where did God create life?I have more questions if you like.

Is that what Percy wrote?You seem to have a fairly casual attitude toward quoting people. What clue do you have about geology? And you think that magic is more scientific than stratigraphy and structural geology?I mean really, is 'goddidit' more explanatory?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

In your case, yes, it's pretty much useless.

Except that this does not conform to the bible, and actually IS evolution by modern definition.I'm not sure you can catch up with us in this century or not, but please desist from redefinition of things you don't understand. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Can you show us one difference between the chimp and human genome that could not be produced by a microevolutionary event?Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulation of DIFFERENT microevolutionary events in divergent lineages. Macroevolution is just microevolution plus genetic isolation.Also, I have yet to see any peer reviewed papers to back your other claims. Trying to confuse everyone with semantic tricks, are we?For pocket mice, we can track the adaptation of these mice to black lava fields, from the production of the beneficial mutation to the spread of that mutation in different populations.Just a moment...That is evolution.Edited by Admin, : Fix subtitle font size.

Mike, you and Eliyahu can scream as loud, large and ugly as you want but that will not change the fact that you are wrong. Given a population of, say, a million individuals each having 10+- mutations different than their parents (not allele differences but actual genetic sequence mutations) adding 10,000,000 mutations to the population-wide genome each generation, you really are going to sit here and tell us that after 100,000 generations you have determined there cannot be any major changes?You are the one defying sound logic, Mike.From your source:

quote:

---

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

​

This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information.

---

Riiight. And arranging all the notes in a different way may make different sounds but will not produce any new music.Bullshit!

quote:

---

These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

​

Amazingnatural selection can ‘test for possible uses’ of ‘non-functional’ (i.e., useless!) limbs in the wrong place. Such deformities would be active hindrances to survival.

---

Yeah, like having grown some pseudo-legs where the fins were supposed to be. Obviously useless ... unless ...Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

How immature!

Does god create new species then?

Bs'dI can come up with MANY questions that evo's cannot answer.The point however, remains, that the fossil record is in agreement with creation, and rebuffs evolution.

So what you are saying every few million years god creates a completely new species. why dont we just wait for got to start creating new ones and see, till then we use the model that works.