Evolution's Brick Wall

[Colter]

What's an "ancient human"?

Bernie Sanders

 

[Ophiolite]

It is quite remarkable the continuing replies I get but nothing on what I have clearly stated - where is the morphologically detailed fossil evidence of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

It is apparent many on CF have not known about how evolution is based on conjecture.

Now we will see who is open or closed-door bias.

May I remind you that you are consistently failing to address one specific example of this that I have have asked you to address repeatedly. Why will you not do so? Do I need to ask the question in large, emboldened red letters, as if you were some willful child? I trust not. Please answer it now and, in parallel, stop demanding morphologically detailed fossil evidence for one lifeform changing into another when that is exactly what is provided in the case of the evolution of ammonites.

Why do you reject the increasing complexity of ammonite sutures through the Mezozoic as evidence of evolution?

I sincerely hope you are not going to respond with some pathetic remark that "they are all still ammonites". Yes, and humans, apes and lemurs are all still primates.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually it's easy as Pi.

We have what's called "graveyards" that do that very thing.

The problem is, evolution doesn't have graveyards; it has an ocean basin.

With a grain of sand here and a grain of sand there, a hundred miles away, and so on.

Then they draw lines between the grains (called "missing links"), and assume everything is interconnected.

If ignorance is bliss you must be in the running for the most blissful person on the planet. Congratulations.

 

[inquiring mind]

May I remind you that you are consistently failing to address one specific example of this that I have have asked you to address repeatedly. Why will you not do so? Do I need to ask the question in large, emboldened red letters, as if you were some willful child? I trust not. Please answer it now and, in parallel, stop demanding morphologically detailed fossil evidence for one lifeform changing into another when that is exactly what is provided in the case of the evolution of ammonites.

Why do you reject the increasing complexity of ammonite sutures through the Mezozoic as evidence of evolution?

I sincerely hope you are not going to respond with some pathetic remark that "they are all still ammonites". Yes, and humans, apes and lemurs are all still primates.

I know you probably discredit them, like anyone else who disagrees with evolution, but here’s an excerpt from a 2004 Frank Sherwin article, "Ammonite Evolution?" over at ICR (and I believe the summary is that they’re still just ammonites). I’m not an expert myself, but I’d be interested in your response to this answer to your question. It just seems like it’s the same story over and over... no evidence.

“Creation scientists see ammonites as always having been ammonites, complete with their intricately working parts. Evolutionists are puzzled by their regularly coiled shells,3 certainly not a problem for the creationist. Is there variation among these creatures? Certainly, within the created ammonite kind. For example, ammonites—big or small—are found in the fossil record from the Early Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous, but always as ammonites. The sutures in the shells were found to be more elaborate in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic, but there is no significant change. There are no intermediate or part-way ammonite forms in the fossil beds—no unambiguous line of evolutionary descent. For example, non-creationist Richard Milton writes of a hundred-foot section of clay in Folkestone, England, containing ammonites:

Museums and private collections are full of them, preserved in beautiful detail including an iridescent pearly shell. They come from a section of clay perhaps 100 feet high, which presumably, in uniformitarian terms, represents millions of years of sedimentation. Yet among the tens of thousands of specimens dug up by collectors, no one has ever found a specimen that is part way between Hoplites dentatus and Euhoplites lautus or between lautus and Mortoniceras inflatum—or between any of the fourteen different ammonites.4

Here's the point. When one searches through specific sections of the sedimentary rock, no evidence of macroevolution is found, be they ammonites or people. Furthermore, the complexity of these creatures doesn't match the Darwinist prediction that states they should become more complex as one goes up the sedimentary rock layers.5 One reads of ammonite extinctions (e.g., BioScience, v. 52, no. 5, p. 446) which fits well with the creation/Flood model, but virtually nothing of their origin (macroevolution).”

_____________________________

1. Clarkson, E., Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution, Allen and Unwin, 1986, p. 202.

2. Discover, November 1998, p. 36.

3. Checa, Okamoto, and Keupp, Paleobiology, 28(1) 2002, p. 127.

4. Milton, R., Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Park Street Press, 1997, p. 111.

 

[Ophiolite]

I know you probably discredit them, like anyone else who disagrees with evolution,

I have tried, usually successfully, to avoid discrediting individuals from the outset. I address their arguments. However, if an individual in print, on forums, or face to face, persistently misinterprets, willfully misunderstands, or deliberately misapplies evidence then I will be expect to face more of the same from them with regularity.

I’m not an expert myself, but I’d be interested in your response to this answer to your question. It just seems like it’s the same story over and over... no evidence.

Before I address some of the specifics of the extract you have provided I want to address one aspect of your words that here that infuriates me to incandescence.

I do not have an issue if someone chooses to contest the significance of the evidence.
I do not have an issue if someone chooses to challenge the interpretation of the evidence.
I do not have an issue if someone chooses to question the weight attached to the evidence.

All of these actions are sound, reasonable aspects of scientific debate. Indeed they are an important parts of the scientific process. I applaud them.

What I shall not do is sit back quietly and tolerate the claim that there is no evidence. There are two reasons why such a claim might be made. Let me be blunt: ignorance, lying.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ignorance. What we don't know is always vastly more than what we do know; we are all ignorant of most things. You have, with appropriate integrity, declared that you are not an expert on ammonites. (For that matter, neither am I, but I have studied them, collected them, measured them, etc., so i have some grounding in the subject.)

So, we are agreed, I hope, that you are ignorant about ammonites. That would explain why you have suggested there is no evidence. I can let you know there is a mountain of evidence, based upon many thousands of fossil ammonites, studied by hundreds of individuals who are experts.

May I recommend that if any Creationist wishes to increase the chances that their arguments will be listened to with a measure of respect that they cease using this claim - in oh so many instances - that there is no evidence for this or that aspect of evolution. The first time the claim is made we can explain it away as ignorance. When it is repeated, after correction, it marks the claimant as a liar. (And, it has to be said, not a very smart one - unless of course their aim is to generate incandescent rage in evolutionists.)

"Evolutionists are puzzled by their regularly coiled shells,3 certainly not a problem for the creationist."

One of my university teachers was an expert in sexual dimorphism in ammonites. He wasn't puzzled by their regularly coiled shells and no other palaeontologist I ever spoke to was puzzled by them, nor did I encounter anything in the literature expressing puzzlement. (Note that asking questions such as "why are the shells coiled?" is not equivalent to puzzlement.)

The underlying assertion of your extract is, as you rightly adduced, that "ammonites have always been ammonites". Ammonites, in the Linnaean system are classified as a Sub-Class. When I was "learning my trade" the magesterial volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology that dealt with ammonites treated them as an Order. That's one level down from a Sub-Class. Since that view is more favourable to the Creationist viewpoint that's the position I shall take.

How does Homo sapiens stand in terms of Orders? Which Order are we part of? It turns out that the equivalent to the Order of Ammonites, is the Order of Primates. That is to say, the variation we see in the ammonites is broadly equivalent to the variation we see in primates. That's the conclusion of thousands (arguably tens of thousands) of biologists and palaeontologists who have studied the matter for a century or two.

Now, evolutionists who engage with Creationists are often frustrated by the inability of the latter to provide a clear and agreed definition of "kind". Nevertheless there does appear to be agreement that lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are different kinds. Well, if they are different kinds then so to are the different kinds of ammonites, for in both cases they are members of an Order. Contrary argument is frankly silly and ignores the understanding developed in regard to classification of the animal Kingdom over many generations, involving many tens of thousands of scientists.

To recap my opening point; I don't have an issue with any of the following statements from Creationists (I think they are mistaken, but they are statements of integrity.):

• I acknowledge the evidence for evolution, but my faith tells me it must be mistaken in some regard, though I do not know what that is. However, I have no grounds for denying any specific aspect of the evidence, or of evolutionary theory.
  
• I acknowledge the evidence for evolution, but believe this is an example of embedded age that God chose to impose on his creation.

However, I do have an issue with false statements, especially when these have been corrected multiple times, or when the challenged, the individual simply avoids addressing it. In that regard I thank you for recognising your low knowledge base in regard to ammonites and your readiness to offer a reasonably well expressed contrary view.

Please ask for clarification of any of my points.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have tried, usually successfully, to avoid discrediting individuals from the outset. I address their arguments. However, if an individual in print, on forums, or face to face, persistently misinterprets, willfully misunderstands, or deliberately misapplies evidence then I will be expect to face more of the same from them with regularity.


Before I address some of the specifics of the extract you have provided I want to address one aspect of your words that here that infuriates me to incandescence.

I do not have an issue if someone chooses to contest the significance of the evidence.
I do not have an issue if someone chooses to challenge the interpretation of the evidence.
I do not have an issue if someone chooses to question the weight attached to the evidence.

All of these actions are sound, reasonable aspects of scientific debate. Indeed they are an important parts of the scientific process. I applaud them.

What I shall not do is sit back quietly and tolerate the claim that there is no evidence. There are two reasons why such a claim might be made. Let me be blunt: ignorance, lying.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ignorance. What we don't know is always vastly more than what we do know; we are all ignorant of most things. You have, with appropriate integrity, declared that you are not an expert on ammonites. (For that matter, neither am I, but I have studied them, collected them, measured them, etc., so i have some grounding in the subject.)

So, we are agreed, I hope, that you are ignorant about ammonites. That would explain why you have suggested there is no evidence. I can let you know there is a mountain of evidence, based upon many thousands of fossil ammonites, studied by hundreds of individuals who are experts.

May I recommend that if any Creationist wishes to increase the chances that their arguments will be listened to with a measure of respect that they cease using this claim - in oh so many instances - that there is no evidence for this or that aspect of evolution. The first time the claim is made we can explain it away as ignorance. When it is repeated, after correction, it marks the claimant as a liar. (And, it has to be said, not a very smart one - unless of course their aim is to generate incandescent rage in evolutionists.)

One of my university teachers was an expert in sexual dimorphism in ammonites. He wasn't puzzled by their regularly coiled shells and no other palaeontologist I ever spoke to was puzzled by them, nor did I encounter anything in the literature expressing puzzlement. (Note that asking questions such as "why are the shells coiled?" is not equivalent to puzzlement.)

The underlying assertion of your extract is, as you rightly adduced, that "ammonites have always been ammonites". Ammonites, in the Linnaean system are classified as a Sub-Class. When I was "learning my trade" the magesterial volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology that dealt with ammonites treated them as an Order. That's one level down from a Sub-Class. Since that view is more favourable to the Creationist viewpoint that's the position I shall take.

How does Homo sapiens stand in terms of Orders? Which Order are we part of? It turns out that the equivalent to the Order of Ammonites, is the Order of Primates. That is to say, the variation we see in the ammonites is broadly equivalent to the variation we see in primates. That's the conclusion of thousands (arguably tens of thousands) of biologists and palaeontologists who have studied the matter for a century or two.

Now, evolutionists who engage with Creationists are often frustrated by the inability of the latter to provide a clear and agreed definition of "kind". Nevertheless there does appear to be agreement that lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are different kinds. Well, if they are different kinds then so to are the different kinds of ammonites, for in both cases they are members of an Order. Contrary argument is frankly silly and ignores the understanding developed in regard to classification of the animal Kingdom over many generations, involving many tens of thousands of scientists.

To recap my opening point; I don't have an issue with any of the following statements from Creationists (I think they are mistaken, but they are statements of integrity.):

• I acknowledge the evidence for evolution, but my faith tells me it must be mistaken in some regard, though I do not know what that is. However, I have no grounds for denying any specific aspect of the evidence, or of evolutionary theory.
  
• I acknowledge the evidence for evolution, but believe this is an example of embedded age that God chose to impose on his creation.

However, I do have an issue with false statements, especially when these have been corrected multiple times, or when the challenged, the individual simply avoids addressing it. In that regard I thank you for recognising your low knowledge base in regard to ammonites and your readiness to offer a reasonably well expressed contrary view.

Please ask for clarification of any of my points.

This is the type of response I have gotten used to when offering a contrary view or opinion (even an article that cites references) to evolutionists... a rather long-winded discourse on an individual’s misinterpretation, lack of understanding and ignorance, misapplication or lying, etc. Fully ¾ of your response is dedicated to that charge, despite your own admittance of having somewhat of an ignorant position in regard to the subject yourself. That alone tells me that you too are operating only from the stance of an opinion, and not from the position of an expert. So, in that regard, I really don’t care what you take issue with.

If this excerpt from your reply is the closest you can come to ‘evidence’...

“The underlying assertion of your extract is, as you rightly adduced, that "ammonites have always been ammonites". Ammonites, in the Linnaean system are classified as a Sub-Class. When I was "learning my trade" the magesterial volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology that dealt with ammonites treated them as an Order. That's one level down from a Sub-Class. Since that view is more favourable to the Creationist viewpoint that's the position I shall take.

How does Homo sapiens stand in terms of Orders? Which Order are we part of? It turns out that the equivalent to the Order of Ammonites, is the Order of Primates. That is to say, the variation we see in the ammonites is broadly equivalent to the variation we see in primates. That's the conclusion of thousands (arguably tens of thousands) of biologists and palaeontologists who have studied the matter for a century or two.

Now, evolutionists who engage with Creationists are often frustrated by the inability of the latter to provide a clear and agreed definition of "kind". Nevertheless there does appear to be agreement that lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are different kinds. Well, if they are different kinds then so to are the different kinds of ammonites, for in both cases they are members of an Order. Contrary argument is frankly silly and ignores the understanding developed in regard to classification of the animal Kingdom over many generations, involving many tens of thousands of scientists.”

... then I have no further use of your ‘opinion’ either.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is the type of response I have gotten used to when offering a contrary view or opinion (even an article that cites references) to evolutionists... a rather long-winded discourse on an individual’s misinterpretation, lack of understanding and ignorance, misapplication or lying, etc. Fully ¾ of your response is dedicated to that charge, despite your own admittance of having somewhat of an ignorant position in regard to the subject yourself. That alone tells me that you too are operating only from the stance of an opinion, and not from the position of an expert. So, in that regard, I really don’t care what you take issue with.

If this excerpt from your reply is the closest you can come to ‘evidence’...

“The underlying assertion of your extract is, as you rightly adduced, that "ammonites have always been ammonites". Ammonites, in the Linnaean system are classified as a Sub-Class. When I was "learning my trade" the magesterial volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology that dealt with ammonites treated them as an Order. That's one level down from a Sub-Class. Since that view is more favourable to the Creationist viewpoint that's the position I shall take.

How does Homo sapiens stand in terms of Orders? Which Order are we part of? It turns out that the equivalent to the Order of Ammonites, is the Order of Primates. That is to say, the variation we see in the ammonites is broadly equivalent to the variation we see in primates. That's the conclusion of thousands (arguably tens of thousands) of biologists and palaeontologists who have studied the matter for a century or two.

Now, evolutionists who engage with Creationists are often frustrated by the inability of the latter to provide a clear and agreed definition of "kind". Nevertheless there does appear to be agreement that lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are different kinds. Well, if they are different kinds then so to are the different kinds of ammonites, for in both cases they are members of an Order. Contrary argument is frankly silly and ignores the understanding developed in regard to classification of the animal Kingdom over many generations, involving many tens of thousands of scientists.”

... then I have no further use of your ‘opinion’ either.

I find your response very disappointing, especially coming from someone who has the forum credentials you do.

I was at pains to show respect both to your views and to your approach. I spoke of your integrity. I thanked you for recognising you were not an expert in the field. I repeatedly distinguished between your contribution and that of many Creationists.

My expostion on the material you provided was short, because it did not require length to make the simple point. Ammonites were every bit as varied as primates are today. That's not my opinion. That's the view of science on the matter. That being the case they are a clear, documented instance of evolution form one 'kind' to another 'kind'.

You asked for my response to that material. I took care to provide background, which you found long winded, and made every effort to give you a comprehensive, honest report. Your response is to dismiss my efforts as mere opinion and be implicitly offensive. As I said, I'm disappointed. I thought we might actually have a productive dialogue.

One last chance for you: you are ignorant about ammonites. I am not. The material you provided overlooks the fact that the diversity within the Order of ammonites is equivalent to the diversity in the Order of Primates. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Reject it if you wish, but please don't try to pretend you reject it on the basis of science and don't try to reject it by calling it an opinion.

 

[inquiring mind]

I find your response very disappointing, especially coming from someone who has the forum credentials you do.

I too get disappointed when it comes to this, but that happens when you start throwing around the description of 'ignorant' in every response. You guys need to keep that in mind.

One last chance for you: you are ignorant about ammonites. I am not.

See what I mean... and evidently you made leaps and bounds in your education from the previous post admission.

Ammonites were every bit as varied as primates are today.

The material you provided overlooks the fact that the diversity within the Order of ammonites is equivalent to the diversity in the Order of Primates.

I'm really through with our discussion, but I can't resist one last question. Didn't ammonites hit a brick wall too?

 

[pitabread]

Now, evolutionists who engage with Creationists are often frustrated by the inability of the latter to provide a clear and agreed definition of "kind". Nevertheless there does appear to be agreement that lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are different kinds. Well, if they are different kinds then so to are the different kinds of ammonites, for in both cases they are members of an Order. Contrary argument is frankly silly and ignores the understanding developed in regard to classification of the animal Kingdom over many generations, involving many tens of thousands of scientists.”

... then I have no further use of your ‘opinion’ either.

If I were a creationist, I would be rather concerned about the above. Because it highlights how the term "kind" gets used in an arbitrary fashion.

To Ophiolite's point, this is where you should be asking the questions: if the order of Ammonite organisms is considered a single "kind", then why not also the order of Primates? How are those organisms being grouped? What differentiates one "kind" from another? What is the biological boundary being defined? How is that biological boundary applied? How can that biological boundary be supported via testing and observation (i.e. hypothesis testing)?

And so on.

 

[inquiring mind]

If I were a creationist, I would be rather concerned about the above. Because it highlights how the term "kind" gets used in an arbitrary fashion.

To Ophiolite's point, this is where you should be asking the questions: if the order of Ammonite organisms is considered a single "kind", then why not also the order of Primates? How are those organisms being grouped? What differentiates one "kind" from another? What is the biological boundary being defined? How is that biological boundary applied? How can that biological boundary be supported via testing and observation (i.e. hypothesis testing)?

And so on.

Look, I think I get what you guys are saying, there is some form of progression or evolution in most orders that have been around long enough. But, regardless if they are ‘in line’ or ‘parallel’ or ‘intertwined’ that is not proof that given enough time they change into something else, especially when there is a huge gap. My questions are really simple in regard to this progression being evidence of the march to mankind: 1) Does that huge gap exist or not? 2) If so, what evidence “from within that gap,” not on either side of it, shows a definite progression to man? That’s about as simple as I can put it.

 

[pitabread]

But, regardless if they are ‘in line’ or ‘parallel’ or ‘intertwined’ that is not proof that given enough time they change into something else, especially when there is a huge gap.

What gap are you speaking about though?

If you're going to argue for a biological barrier in nature that limits evolution then what is that barrier?

 

[inquiring mind]

What gap are you speaking about though?

If you're going to argue for a biological barrier in nature that limits evolution then what is that barrier?

That's pretty good... now I've got to answer my own question.

 

[Ophiolite]

I too get disappointed when it comes to this, but that happens when you start throwing around the description of 'ignorant' in every response. You guys need to keep that in mind.

Did you actually bother to read what I wrote? It seems not.
You seem to take the word "ignorant" as being somehow demeaning and insulting. I was at pains to point out that we are all ignorant of much more than we are knowledgable about. You freely declared that you were not an expert on ammonites. i.e you are largely ignorant about ammonites. That's no big deal. I thanked you for being direct about that. Applauded you for acknowledging your ignorance of the subject. It seems you are ignorant of the broader meaning of the word ignorant. And now I really hope you are not going to take offence at that too, but am not overly optimistic.
I'm sorry you took the use of the word ignorant and ignorance the wrong way. I apologise for any offense I may have caused. I did my best in my previous post and in this one to explain how I am using it - a perfectly legitimate use by the way and one that is much more in line with its entymology than the current colloquial usage.

See what I mean... and evidently you made leaps and bounds in your education from the previous post admission

I see what you mean, but do you now see what I mean. You are, indeed, by your own declaration, ignorant about ammonites. This is not in any perjorative sense. It is an objective evaluation, based upon your input, of your state of knowledge concerning ammonites. It is most certainly not the equivalent of saying that you are ignorant, with the implication being, ignorant about just about everything.

In my initial post to you, in the spirit of friendship, I accurately stated that I was no expert in ammonites. I am not. To consider myself such I would expect to have acquired a Ph.D. in their study and have followed that up with at least a decade of further study. I have not done any of that. However, I suggest the amount of study I have made of ammonites, including practical work collecting, identifying and measurming, takes me an order of magnitude away from being ignorant about them (and another order of magnitude away, at least, from being an expert).

So, your remark here, that came across as sarcastic, doesn't seem to have any foundation. There is no difference, except in the amount of detail I provided, between my characterisation of my experience with ammonites in either of my posts.

Didn't ammonites hit a brick wall too?

No. The brick wall hit them, in the form of a rather large, fast-moving bolide. That's evolution for you - contingent events can play havoc with your lineage.

 

[inquiring mind]

It seems you are ignorant of the broader meaning of the word ignorant.

No sir, I’m not ignorant of that either. It’s just not the best word to use in conversation with someone, especially when you are disagreeing, as it is easily received in the wrong way. There’s a phrase for that you know, it’s called “insolence through manner.” You have explained; I understand; Let’s move on.

 

[Job 33:6]

Look, I think I get what you guys are saying, there is some form of progression or evolution in most orders that have been around long enough. But, regardless if they are ‘in line’ or ‘parallel’ or ‘intertwined’ that is not proof that given enough time they change into something else, especially when there is a huge gap. My questions are really simple in regard to this progression being evidence of the march to mankind: 1) Does that huge gap exist or not? 2) If so, what evidence “from within that gap,” not on either side of it, shows a definite progression to man? That’s about as simple as I can put it.

There are gaps in the fossil record, just as there is a gap between grandfather and grandson in a graveyard. Genetically, cousins that are descendants from a grandfather, will have genetic likeness.

The same thing exists in evolution. Our graveyard in the fossil record has gaps, and our genetics align with the temporal order of those gaps, just as genetics in cousins are more and more separated, the further descended they are from the grandfather.

Evolution has a handfull of additional pieces of evidence though. Such as biogeographical distributions (things like marsupials progressing through south america, elephants on africa and india etc.), ERVs, fused chromosome 2, and genetic likeness identified through mutational differences in DNA.

 

[inquiring mind]

There are gaps in the fossil record, just as there is a gap between grandfather and grandson in a graveyard. Genetically, cousins that are descendants from a grandfather, will have genetic likeness.

The same thing exists in evolution. Our graveyard in the fossil record has gaps, and our genetics align with the temporal order of those gaps, just as genetics in cousins are more and more separated, the further descended they are from the grandfather.

Evolution has a handfull of additional pieces of evidence though. Such as biogeographical distributions (things like marsupials progressing through south america, elephants on africa and india etc.), ERVs, fused chromosome 2, and genetic likeness identified through mutational differences in DNA.

I appreciate your response and the video, which I did watch. I know it’s been said already, but genetics does seem to be the best argument for evolutionists. Putting the geographical distributions aside right now, let’s say a geneticist, who is also a believer in creation jumped in here... what would their argument be? Not that it will change your mind or anything, but I do hope you read this article:

https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

 

[Job 33:6]

I appreciate your response and the video, which I did watch. I know it’s been said already, but genetics does seem to be the best argument for evolutionists. Putting the geographical distributions aside right now, let’s say a geneticist, who is also a believer in creation jumped in here... what would their argument be? Not that it will change your mind or anything, but I do hope you read this article:

https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

Typically we hear the "same design, same designer" response discussed in the video above. I have not heard responses for ERVs or fused chromosome 2 or things like cytochrome C studies or protein studies.

biogeographical distributions are attributed to things like the flood, but of course that doesn't pan out.

 

[pitabread]

https://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

The claims Sanford makes about genetics appears to fly in the face of real-world data. For example, see the E. coli long-term evolution experiment:

Although adaptation decelerated sharply, genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature. Thus, the coupling between genomic and adaptive evolution is complex and can be counterintuitive even in a constant environment. In particular, beneficial substitutions were surprisingly uniform over time, whereas neutral substitutions were highly variable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838166

 

[Job 33:6]

The claims Sanford makes about genetics appears to fly in the face of real-world data. For example, see the E. coli long-term evolution experiment:

Although adaptation decelerated sharply, genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature. Thus, the coupling between genomic and adaptive evolution is complex and can be counterintuitive even in a constant environment. In particular, beneficial substitutions were surprisingly uniform over time, whereas neutral substitutions were highly variable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838166

I actually downloaded and read maybe 3 or 4 of these papers, they're very informative.

 

[Heissonear]

I too get disappointed when it comes to this, but that happens when you start throwing around the description of 'ignorant' in every response. You guys need to keep that in mind.


See what I mean... and evidently you made leaps and bounds in your education from the previous post admission.



I'm really through with our discussion, but I can't resist one last question. Didn't ammonites hit a brick wall too?

As you know, so many are like Elite-controllers over others in their knowledge. Knowledge does puff up, as a scripture mentions.

So many of us who are not part of evolutionists are looked down upon. We get ad hominem attacks with sharp edges. Ignorance is one of them. Not having the academic background to know better is another.

Several take shots at us on each thread. Sometimes when we expose their error we get an array of shots per post. It is like the poster becomes the topic of discussion. Simple persecution for seed in good soil to have opportunity to grow rather than wither, in real life experiences.

You have presented an excellent thread.