Evolution vs Creationism

[Molal]

it's nearly 10pm where I am and i'm still recovering from traveling to get to North Carolina from Australia so I'll call it a night for now.

I'd suggest reading (if you have the time):
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4884/113

The two books on evolution by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

I'll dig up my other references when I have time.

As for definition of "kind", I'll define it as synonomous with the current definition of "family". Basically, all I'm saying is that it's several levels higher up the current species classification chain that species.

Ok, thank you.

Sleep well and enjoy your stay here in the States. By the way, where are you. If you don't mind me asking.

 

[Jadis40]

Backing up to one of the points made about man and dinosaur footprints being found together - that's a well known hoax.

The Paluxy River tracks were dismissed as being a fraud.

AnswersinGenesis also recognizes that the Paluxy River tracks are an argument creationists shouldn't use.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

Also, as far as the 'just a theory' argument, in science, theory has a vastly different meaning than in every day use, which generally means a hunch.

Cases in point-
Germ theory of disease: http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2007.htm
Atomic theory: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec05.html
Electromagnetic theory:
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter1/ch1_3.htm
Theory of relativity: http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/uft.htm

 

[sfs]

The problem with the theory of evolution (and this is going to be a long post so please forgive me), is that it cannot be proven, it does not match the facts as completely as it *could*, and it leaves God out of the equation (a major problem for a Christian).

If evolution were true, there would be:
a) missing links
b) lots of missing links

Presumably you mean transitional fossils, since links that are missing are not very interesting. Yes, there are transitional fossils, and yes there are lots of them.

c) significant differences in the species we observe today and those in the fossil record detailed as 'millions of years ago'

You should read up on the history of geology. Geologists discovered that certain fossils were consistently found in certain rock layers long before Darwin's time. Life on Earth has changed enormously over time. For example, there were no land plants at all before around 425 million years ago, no insects before 400 mya, no amphibians before 380 mya. There were no dinosaurs before 230 mya, and none (excepting birds) after 65 mya. I'd say those are quite significant changes.

d) it defies belief - the statistical probability that this universe exists in all it's complexity might as well be zero. It is completely improbable. Evolution is the most improbable theory to generate this universe. At least the belief that God created it as is... implies a probability greater than zero.

I'm sorry, but this is not an argument, and it's not about evolution. Evolution explains changes to life; it has nothing to say about the probability that the universe exists.

e) Evolution requires death - a major problem for me particularly because of the 'waste' and the invalidation of God's punishment (you can't have temporal become eternal).

That's a problem for you, but it's not a problem for evolution as a scientific theory.

f) The assumption of millions of years to create fossils is impossible. There are fossils between layers of rocks that have supposedly different ages differring by millions of years. Fossils are created in seconds (otherwise fish swallowing other fish simply wouldn't be found). The eruption of Mt St Helens proved this (but has been conveniently ignored).

There is no assumption that it takes millions of years to create fossils. Fossils (which are any kind of trace left by the distant past) can be created overnight -- they're just not called fossils unless they're quite old. Fossil footprints, for example, are created very quickly.

Could you provide some examples of the fossils that span strata separated by millions of years? As for Mount St. Helens, geologists are well aware of what volcanic eruptions look like in the geological record, and there are many of them.

g) Time dating (of any kind) depends on the assumptions made about the state of being at the time of dating. Using exactly the same data, but different starting assumptions can result in ages ranging from a few hundred years to a few million years.

What assumptions are you talking about? What assumptions are made in isochron dating, for example?

h) dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time... yet all evolutionary theory has this as impossible.

Dinosaurs and humans did not exist at the same time. Even most creationist organizations won't traffic in the alleged "proofs" that they did.

i) evolutionary theory cannot explain the formation of the 'perfect' galaxy for life nor the perfect distance of the earth from the sun, the existance of the moon, and all the other millions and billions of "little" things which add up to make life possible on earth. If any which one of them were missed.... life wouldn't exist.

Quite true. Evolutionary theory also cannot explain the orbit of Mercury. In both cases it can't because it doesn't try. Once again, evolution doesn't say anything about the structure or nature of the universe. All it does is describe how life changes over time.

j) evolution doesn't have a purpose.

Neither do most observed scientific phenomena.

why evolve? what for?

Because it's possible. Why grow? Why fall down? Why erode? What do these questions even mean?

are we still evolving now?

Yes.

how come things are getting worse and not better? if things keep getting worse now, how can we conclude that things somehow got better to arrive at this point? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that we started at perfection and deteriorated?!

What are you talking about? What biological things are getting worse? Other than the mass extinction currently being caused by humans, that is.

 

[Agent101]

good job, creationists in defending the faith! if anyone (creationist or evolutionist) would like, they can pm me re: this issue.

it is definitely important to know what we believe here. and go BlueIceDragon. you totally rock!

~"Amy"~

 

[Molal]

good job, creationists in defending the faith! if anyone (creationist or evolutionist) would like, they can pm me re: this issue.

it is definitely important to know what we believe here. and go BlueIceDragon. you totally rock!

~"Amy"~

I think blueicedragon has done a fine job; however, a literal interpretation is not the only interpretation out there.

I think it is incumbent on creationist to show why evolution is wrong and why a literal interpretation of genesis is correct.

 

[sfs]

I'll mention that to the mathematicians. It would seem their proofs are not scientific....

They're not -- they're mathematical. Science is empirical and deals in evidence. Mathematics is logical and deals in proof.

No, you are wrong here! I can create a model which has a perfect fit to ANY set of data however it will be completely useless for prediction. More data collected at the same points could also continue to 'match' my model, but it would still be complete rubbish.

That's why science relies on predicting new data as the means of testing theories. Evolution (meaning descent from a common ancestor) makes many predictions, especially in genetics, predictions that are routinely borne out as new data is accumulated. That's why common descent is used as the framework for understanding a wide range of biological phenomena: it's the only one that works. No creationist model I've ever seen even attempts to explain the nitty gritty genetic data we work with all the time.

There is NO proof whatsoever that ANY bacterium evolved into anything other than another bacterial organism. No matter how much prediction is done in this direction it never happens in reality. Therefore, the evolutionary model is never tested in this direction and can never been 'proven' that the assumption of across kind species jumps ever occur.

Evolution of anything from bacteria happened so long ago that there's little (not none -- just little) evidence of exactly happened. There is abundant evidence that evolution across "kinds" (wherever you happen to draw that line) has happened. In particular, there is overwhelming evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Name one fossil that is a transition between an ape and a human. Just one, that wasn't proven a) to be a hoax, and b) being sufficiently close to being either ape or human to be classified as a 'subspecies' rather than a link.

Here is a chart of human ancestors' cranial capacity. Where do you think the line between humans and apes lies?

See any sensible study of the Grand Canyon (it's been done to death) to see proof of my statement. Fossils exist 'between layers' where there is supposedly impossible.

You'll have to be more specific. I've seen a fair number of studies of the Grand Canyon, and they all report very different things than you do. They show layer after layer of changing depositional environments, some under the sea, some in muddy shorelines, some in desert, with steadily changing fossil life.

You know... I have a hypothesis on the belief system of humans. The more improbable and event is to occur, the more convoluted a theory they will fabricate to produce that event in order to justify its improbability. Evolution to create life is so physically and spiritually absurd that, well, I for one do not have enough faith to believe it.

Scientists have very little interest in how much faith you need to believe something. They care how well a given model explains existing evidence and predicts new evidence. Evolution does both superbly, and so they will continue to accept it until someone offers something at least as good.

I see. That's why the evolutionists stopped looking for fossil links betwen apes and humans years ago?!

Where are you getting these remarkable ideas? Scientists are still quite actively looking for transitional fossils between humans and apes.

Indeed. Which is why carbon dating techniques idenitifed a dog buried by a roadside in Britain as being buried at least 2oo years ago, when the farmer who buried it was still alive and in fact had buried it 1 year prior...

Again, could you give specifics? It's a little hard to evaluate the statement as it stands.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm firmly confident that the theory of creation is a much better fit to the data than evolution.

Here is one small set of data that I've been trying to find a creationist explanation for. Would you be willing to give it a try, or find me a creationist who would?

 

[Mallon]

You guys really got ssssssucked into this argument.

 

[Molal]

You guys really got ssssssucked into this argument.

You are welcome to get sucked in as well

 

[sfs]

I noticed that sfs is lurking!! Sfs is a geneticist, can you provide any light on ERVs and their relationship to the ERVs found in ape DNA?

Yes, I can.

Oh, you want me to actually provide the information? Sheesh. It's late and I don't have time for a detailed description; there have been good threads on the subject previously, mostly in the creation/evolution forum.

The brief version of the story is that ERV (endogenous retroviruses) are viruses that have infected humans or their ancestors and inserted copies of their viral genes into our genome. You can find them littered all over the genome, many just genetic debris, but some still carrying genes for important viral proteins. What is interesting about them is that you will find the identical virus inserted into the identical spot in the genome in multiple species (like, say, humans, gorillas and chimpanzees). If you draw a tree based on which species share insertion points, you will reproduce the supposed evolutionary tree of descent of those species.

The evolutionary explanation for shared ERVs is simple: the virus inserted itself into the common ancestor (the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, in the case I mentioned above), and it was then inherited by all of the species that descended from that species. The only creationist explanation I've seen is more or less, "Well, maybe they were created that way." Of course, any arrangement of ERVs could have been created, so the evidence can't rule out creation. Evolution, on the other hand, demands a very specific arrangement of ERVs: identical insertion sites should only be shared by species that share a common ancestor. If you found an insertion site in orangutans, macaques and humans, but not in gorillas or chimpanzees (assuming the surrounding sequence was still present in all of them), then something would be seriously wrong.

This is what I mean by scientific theories being testable: common descent makes very specific predictions. And since there are hundreds of thousands of ERV copies in our genome, the theory makes lots and lots of predictions, i.e. lots of opportunities to show it's wrong.

There are other fun things you can do with ERVs. You can roughly date a particular kind of ERV, by counting how many mutations have accumulated in the copies since they were inserted. When you do that, you find that the older the ERV, the more species will share each insertion site. It's a nice, independent way to show that the ERVs really are shared because of common descent.

 

[sfs]

good job, creationists in defending the faith! if anyone (creationist or evolutionist) would like, they can pm me re: this issue.

it is definitely important to know what we believe here. and go BlueIceDragon. you totally rock!

I'm a Christian, but I don't share that particular faith. I have no quarrel with someone who believes in a literal Genesis -- unless they make scientific claims based on that belief.

 

[mark kennedy]

Conclusion

Consistently, the hypothesis of common ancestry makes accurate predictions about the comparative genetics of humans and chimpanzees. No other hypothesis has been offered that provides any kind of useful prediction. Not surprisingly, geneticists overwhelming use evolution, because that is what works.Common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees: mutations​

Then why did you guys not predict that the Indels would dwarf the single nucleotide substitutions that would have been required for us to have evolved from apes?

Here is one small set of data that I've been trying to find a creationist explanation for. Would you be willing to give it a try, or find me a creationist who would?

Maybe you would like to offer an explanation for the indels you neglected to mention in your brief discussion of the single nucleotide substitutions.

I'll tell you what Steve, you have always been square with me so I'll lay my cards on the table. Pay particular attention to tables three and four and understand that these estimates are based on 1.33% divergence. Then ask yourself a fundamental question how do you factor in the deleterious mutation rate when the overall rate jumps to 5%.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (MULLER 1950 Down; WALLACE 1981 Down; CROW 1993 Down; KONDRASHOV 1995 Down; EYRE-WALKER and KEIGHTLEY 1999 Down).​

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, Genetics, Vol. 156, 297-304, September 2000

Let me guess, you are wondering what kind of an argument goes with these little tidbits:

"Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome"

It's not the Creationist who has the unanswered questions, it's you Steve. You will notice that these are per nucleotide rates so your dodge of making all the indels the same regardless of length simple won't work.

 

[Mallon]

You are welcome to get sucked in as well

Not going to happen. This thread feels more like a football game with all the partisan cheerleading going on.
I pick my battles.

 

[Molal]

Yes, I can.

Oh, you want me to actually provide the information? Sheesh. It's late and I don't have time for a detailed description; there have been good threads on the subject previously, mostly in the creation/evolution forum.

The brief version of the story is that ERV (endogenous retroviruses) are viruses that have infected humans or their ancestors and inserted copies of their viral genes into our genome. You can find them littered all over the genome, many just genetic debris, but some still carrying genes for important viral proteins. What is interesting about them is that you will find the identical virus inserted into the identical spot in the genome in multiple species (like, say, humans, gorillas and chimpanzees). If you draw a tree based on which species share insertion points, you will reproduce the supposed evolutionary tree of descent of those species.

The evolutionary explanation for shared ERVs is simple: the virus inserted itself into the common ancestor (the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas, in the case I mentioned above), and it was then inherited by all of the species that descended from that species. The only creationist explanation I've seen is more or less, "Well, maybe they were created that way." Of course, any arrangement of ERVs could have been created, so the evidence can't rule out creation. Evolution, on the other hand, demands a very specific arrangement of ERVs: identical insertion sites should only be shared by species that share a common ancestor. If you found an insertion site in orangutans, macaques and humans, but not in gorillas or chimpanzees (assuming the surrounding sequence was still present in all of them), then something would be seriously wrong.

This is what I mean by scientific theories being testable: common descent makes very specific predictions. And since there are hundreds of thousands of ERV copies in our genome, the theory makes lots and lots of predictions, i.e. lots of opportunities to show it's wrong.

There are other fun things you can do with ERVs. You can roughly date a particular kind of ERV, by counting how many mutations have accumulated in the copies since they were inserted. When you do that, you find that the older the ERV, the more species will share each insertion site. It's a nice, independent way to show that the ERVs really are shared because of common descent.

Thank you Sfs, I know of a few threads in crevo that I could reference, but I enjoy reading your explanation of ERVs

Again, thanks.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh by the way, don't forget chromosomal rearrangements. Mutations Rates are too high to be accounted for by Natural Selection:

Kimura's 1968 article begins with a discussion of the amino acid substitution rate obtained from ZUCKERKANDL and PAULING (1965). From this, Kimura estimated the nucleotide substitution rate on the basis of codon degeneracy and extrapolated this rate to the entire genome on the basis of the total number of base pairs estimated by MULLER (1958). This rate was too high to be accounted for by natural selection, according to HALDANE's (1957) cost of natural selection., Kimura's 1968 article begins with a discussion of the amino acid substitution rate obtained from ZUCKERKANDL and PAULING (1965). (From Genetics, Vol. 176, 1-6, May 2007)​

Darwin predicted natural selection and he was wrong, I sometimes wonder why they keep his assumptions while abandoning his mechanism.

 

[shernren]

Oh by the way, don't forget chromosomal rearrangements. Mutations Rates are too high to be accounted for by Natural Selection:

Kimura's 1968 article begins with a discussion of the amino acid substitution rate obtained from ZUCKERKANDL and PAULING (1965). From this, Kimura estimated the nucleotide substitution rate on the basis of codon degeneracy and extrapolated this rate to the entire genome on the basis of the total number of base pairs estimated by MULLER (1958). This rate was too high to be accounted for by natural selection, according to HALDANE's (1957) cost of natural selection., Kimura's 1968 article begins with a discussion of the amino acid substitution rate obtained from ZUCKERKANDL and PAULING (1965). (From Genetics, Vol. 176, 1-6, May 2007)​

Darwin predicted natural selection and he was wrong, I sometimes wonder why they keep his assumptions while abandoning his mechanism.

Quote mine! For the full story:

From this, Kimura estimated the nucleotide substitution rate on the basis of codon degeneracy and extrapolated this rate to the entire genome on the basis of the total number of base pairs estimated by MULLER (1958). This rate was too high to be accounted for by natural selection, according to HALDANE's (1957) cost of natural selection. Kimura often said that Muller's estimate (4 x 10^9 bp/human sperm) was critically important in advocating his thesis (see also KIMURA 1983). Interestingly, James F. Crow, examining similar data, concluded that the rates were quite consistent with Haldane's cost of natural selection. Crow recalled that he was referring only to coding regions of DNA (DIETRICH 1994). In accord with CROW (1968), KING and JUKES (1969) pointed out that Kimura's estimate of per-genome substitution rates might be exaggerated for several reasons, especially the existence of massive amounts of noncoding DNA. In addition to its provocative title, "Non-Darwinian Evolution," KING and JUKES (1969) is filled with statements that are insightful even today: (1) natural selection was rightly epitomized as the editor, rather than the composer (SIMPSON 1964), of the genetic message; (2) similar at least in principle to the mutationism discussed later in this article, mutation was regarded as the major driving force in evolution; (3) it was convincingly argued that different proteins and different sites within specific proteins evolve at different rates; and (4) uniform rates of evolutionary change within a protein were thought to lend credence to the proposition of neutrality. Like King and Jukes, WILSON and SARICH (1969) also noted that the immunological clock is difficult to explain in terms of natural selection.

Notes:

1. The statement that Kimura found his rates to be too high to be accounted for by natural selection is almost immediately commented on by a statement that Crow found those rates to be entirely consistent with Haldane's model. Mark keeps the former and leaves the latter. No prizes for guessing why.

2. The opposite of natural selection in this paper is not mark kennedy's Nobel-winning theory of inexplicable creationist hypermutation in all life-forms besides man; it is that fast evolution happens at areas with little selective constraint (hence, not acting according to natural selection). As explained later in the paper:

However, despite all this progress in molecular evolution, Kimura remained skeptical of his theory until the high rate of substitutions at synonymous sites (KIMURA 1977) and in pseudogenes (LI et al. 1981; MIYATA and YASUNAGA 1981) was actually observed, consistent with their having little or no apparent selective constraint.

I'm not surprised to see mark quote-mining, but I'm used to him doing it with more finesse!

 

[mark kennedy]

Quote mine! For the full story:

From this, Kimura estimated the nucleotide substitution rate on the basis of codon degeneracy and extrapolated this rate to the entire genome on the basis of the total number of base pairs estimated by MULLER (1958). This rate was too high to be accounted for by natural selection, according to HALDANE's (1957) cost of natural selection. Kimura often said that Muller's estimate (4 x 10^9 bp/human sperm) was critically important in advocating his thesis (see also KIMURA 1983). Interestingly, James F. Crow, examining similar data, concluded that the rates were quite consistent with Haldane's cost of natural selection. Crow recalled that he was referring only to coding regions of DNA (DIETRICH 1994). In accord with CROW (1968), KING and JUKES (1969) pointed out that Kimura's estimate of per-genome substitution rates might be exaggerated for several reasons, especially the existence of massive amounts of noncoding DNA. In addition to its provocative title, "Non-Darwinian Evolution," KING and JUKES (1969) is filled with statements that are insightful even today: (1) natural selection was rightly epitomized as the editor, rather than the composer (SIMPSON 1964), of the genetic message; (2) similar at least in principle to the mutationism discussed later in this article, mutation was regarded as the major driving force in evolution; (3) it was convincingly argued that different proteins and different sites within specific proteins evolve at different rates; and (4) uniform rates of evolutionary change within a protein were thought to lend credence to the proposition of neutrality. Like King and Jukes, WILSON and SARICH (1969) also noted that the immunological clock is difficult to explain in terms of natural selection.

Notes:

1. The statement that Kimura found his rates to be too high to be accounted for by natural selection is almost immediately commented on by a statement that Crow found those rates to be entirely consistent with Haldane's model. Mark keeps the former and leaves the latter. No prizes for guessing why.

That is because Haldane's cost of natural selection was referring only to coding regions. Why is never explained except in terms of the mutations being neutral which has become the sacred cow explanation. At least 80% of the affects of amino acid substitutions with are deleterious when they are strong enough for natural selection to act.

Bottom line, the explanation for how the changes with beneficial effects got in there in the first place are not forth coming. That is to be expected since it's all supposition anyway.

2. The opposite of natural selection in this paper is not mark kennedy's Nobel-winning theory of inexplicable creationist hypermutation in all life-forms besides man; it is that fast evolution happens at areas with little selective constraint (hence, not acting according to natural selection). As explained later in the paper:

The inevitable statical rant while ignoring the syllogistic logic. A plus B equals C, Random plus neutral equals beneficial effects. The problem is that 0 effect plus 0 effects does not result in an adaptation:

However, despite all this progress in molecular evolution, Kimura remained skeptical of his theory until the high rate of substitutions at synonymous sites (KIMURA 1977) and in pseudogenes (LI et al. 1981; MIYATA and YASUNAGA 1981) was actually observed, consistent with their having little or no apparent selective constraint.​

No selective constraint is not adaptive evolution.

However, despite all this progress in molecular evolution, Kimura remained skeptical of his theory until the high rate of substitutions at synonymous sites (KIMURA 1977) and in pseudogenes (LI et al. 1981; MIYATA and YASUNAGA 1981) was actually observed, consistent with their having little or no apparent selective constraint.​

Do you have any idea how many generations it takes to fix a beneficial mutation, let alone a neutral one?

I'm not surprised to see mark quote-mining, but I'm used to him doing it with more finesse!

I must say that I am not surprised to see the actual points being ignored and only seeing a baseless rationalization. You missed the central emphasis on the contrast between the neutral theory and the episodic sudden burst model.

So you continue to go into these speeches to an empty theater, ignoring the substantive issue and obsessing over trivialities. Is it any wonder that I don't bother to make long detailed expositions of the scientific literature.

Things are smoothing out for me shernen. I can hardly wait to get back into this.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thank you Sfs, I know of a few threads in crevo that I could reference, but I enjoy reading your explanation of ERVs

Again, thanks.

I would be fascinated to see how he explains this:

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work.

 

[shernren]

That is because Haldane's cost of natural selection was referring only to coding regions. Why is never explained except in terms of the mutations being neutral which has become the sacred cow explanation. At least 80% of the affects of amino acid substitutions with are deleterious when they are strong enough for natural selection to act.

Firstly, that does not alter the fact that you made a quote out of context.

Secondly, obviously Haldane's cost of natural selection refers only to coding regions. What is the cost of a mutation in a region that does not code for anything?

Do you have any idea how many generations it takes to fix a beneficial mutation, let alone a neutral one?

I'll leave that to the professional geneticist, and you should to! It's definitely shorter than 1667; Haldane himself admitted that his 1957 paper was probably wrong.

You missed the central emphasis on the contrast between the neutral theory and the episodic sudden burst model.

You missed the point of the entire paper and instinctively quoted the one bit you could twist to make it look like there was a problem with evolution. If I'm skilled in missing points, it's only because I've been hanging around the best ...

Is it any wonder that I don't bother to make long detailed expositions of the scientific literature.

It's no wonder, the literature never supports you when you examine it in detail.

 

[mark kennedy]

Firstly, that does not alter the fact that you made a quote out of context.

You just expanded what you called a 'quote mine'. Nothing more was added or emphasized, you just made the central emphasis obscure.

Secondly, obviously Haldane's cost of natural selection refers only to coding regions. What is the cost of a mutation in a region that does not code for anything?

I don't know, if it's a housekeeping or regulatory gene I'm thinking it's equally costly if not more so.

I'll leave that to the professional geneticist, and you should to! It's definitely shorter than 1667; Haldane himself admitted that his 1957 paper was probably wrong.

He probably expected that the dilemma would be solved and it never was. I will leave it to them to produce the scientific literature but reserve the right to draw my own extra-scientific, metaphysical conclusions.

You missed the point of the entire paper and instinctively quoted the one bit you could twist to make it look like there was a problem with evolution. If I'm skilled in missing points, it's only because I've been hanging around the best ...

You would rather make ad hominem attacks them comment on an elegant exposition of landmark scientific literature and then you blame me for it.

Gee, sorry I led you to ignore the central emphasis by repeatedly pointing it out in a confrontational way. My bad.

It's no wonder, the literature never supports you when you examine it in detail.

First you try to prove it contradicts me and that I quoted out of context and failed comically. Then you want to blame me because you missed a crucial contrast at the heart of the emphasis, no apparent reason. Then you claim that I am never supported by the scientific literature after going to so much trouble to conflate and confuse the actual meaning.

I'm flattered by your use of hyperbole and desperate ad hominem attacks but I'm really not that consistent or cleaver. I don't know why evolutionists persist but persist they do and I find that so much more fascinating then what role natural selection actually plays in adaptive evolution.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

I think blueicedragon has done a fine job; however, a literal interpretation is not the only interpretation out there.

I think it is incumbent on creationist to show why evolution is wrong and why a literal interpretation of genesis is correct.

That's an interesting requirement to make a creationist incumbant to 'prove' evolution is wrong since creationism was the default position until evolution was accepted to be 'common theory' which didn't occur till all the promotion done by Darwin and particularly his associates...

I would have thought the burden of proof would fall on the evolutionist since his is the more recent 'challenger' theory.