Are you under the impression that mutation can only lead to a loss of genetic information....? You keep bringing up this "loss of information" concept, but you're never very specific about what it is you actually mean.
How exactly? Where in the bible does it mention mutations, genetic variability, common ancestry, natural selection, sexual selection and all of the other factors that drive evolution? I don't want to hear vague references since that is nothing more than confirmation bias...I want specific details.
Really! I answered the question you asked me then you ignore that and change from that topic to something else. Sorry but we were at the time discussing a certain subject. If I took the time to answer, you should have taken the time to address it before moving on. Like I said, I'm here for those who are hungry, not full.
I was going to answer this until I re-read your "bias' part (even had a message typed out) and realized you already have a set agenda and are not open to anything on my side. In any case, your question was already answered in posts elsewhere. The Bible did lay out a very basic plan that shows where we are in the evolution world is exactly where the Bible says we would be.
Everything works to God's will. But God only gives answers to those who are hungry, not full. The isolation may have nothing to do with what you said, rather, think about where I am posting.
What agenda? All i'm asking for is documented evidence that is unambiguous. Instead of doing that, you're simply ignoring what I have asked, claiming it was "already answered". If you had the evidence, you wouldn't need to resort to these tactics.
In my experience, they reconcile this view (when necessary) by including speciation within the definition of microevolution, instead relying on the vague and biologically arbitrary concept of "kinds" to provide the basis for their definition of macroevolution. Thus, in their view, speciation does not constitute macroevolutionary change.Im not positive, but methinks creationists equate macromutation to speciation. So while theyll countenance minor biological changes (micromutation) over time, big transformations are rejected: separate species were authored by god and cant occur naturally.
Which is a tad odd because it seems creationists rely on speciation to make the Noahs Ark myth work. By their reckoning, Noah just needed to preserve representative kinds - a vital space-saver aboard a vessel with limited space. Thus for example, only a breeding pair of non-descript cats had to be saved; and eventually, these diversified into lions, tigers, cheetahs, felis catus, etc. But this would be speciation/macromutation. And very fast macromutation at that. Allegedly, the Flood occurred around 4300BCE. Yet by 3000BCE, Egyptians were depicting domestic cats in their art.
I can't help but wonder why you're so afraid to address these rather basic scientific concepts. I want to be able to address your previous points, but I cannot do so until I establish a baseline of understanding. I've explained this before.
This hypothesis (and I'm being very kind by using this word) is incomplete without an explanation as to why the transition to increased mortality would render these organs and structures obsolete. If anything, their function should take on even greater importance in light of such a change.
Actually, if you read the post a bit more clearer, you would see that the scriptures I used had to do with something I was trying to explain. Read that post again. It seems like you and perhaps a few others are telling me how to debate here and/or how to present myself here limiting what I have to say and how I should say it even to the point of your "threat" of getting in trouble. And creationists are the unreasonable ones?
I'll answer this post with a kinda none answer only because you've asked several questions to me lately in this thread.
You admitted earlier in this thread that your understanding of these concepts is incomplete, but you keep turning away from the opportunity to correct these deficiencies. Learning more about an opposing view would make you far more capable of arguing against it.
I've addressed it twice now, taking two different approaches - and the first went unrecognized.rodhulk said:
Suit yourself.rodhulk said:
My initial attempt with you failed. I wonder why it would be any different this second time.You admitted earlier in this thread that your understanding of these concepts is incomplete, but you keep turning away from the opportunity to correct these deficiencies. Learning more about an opposing view would make you far more capable of arguing against it.
It would be to your benefit, not mine. *Shrugs*
I've addressed it twice now, taking two different approaches - and the first went unrecognized.
Suit yourself.
Hey, I really tried. I honestly believe that he just doesn't want to have the discussion. Just look at his reasoning for not engaging me further: did ANY of his objections make sense to you?
