Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[jJIM THINNSEN]

This quoted post remains unaddressed.

"You can call it whatever you want, but point mutations introduce new DNA to a species. it is not DNA that is pre-existed in the species it is completely new. and by new what I mean is that this DNA has not existed in the species prior to the mutation."

NOPE. It is NOT "completely new" like you assert.. Do you know more than David Demick about the subject? I guess I shouldn't even have to ask.. LOL

In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:
'Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been
catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations.

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman,"


The EVOLUTIONIST George G. Simpson performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

You aren't addressing the statement made by Ken Miller.

Imagine if in the chimpanzee you have DNA sequence

Chromosome AATTATCG next to chromosome ATGCCTGA. And in human beings you have a single chromosome ATCGATGCCTGA (notice the genetics are identical) and in between the two original sets, you have a telemere that is no longer at the end of your chromosome.

The probability of it being anything but a fusion site is inifinitesimally small.

Can someone propose an alternative to a fusion? Sure.

But probability suggests that the theory of evolution has absolutely no issue with this.

And please, next time you want to quote a creationist website, just post a link. No need to copy and paste multiple pages of text.

No Thanks, If I post a link some people wont open it.. I want EVERYONE to see it.. I want to expose the truth for all to see...

I wrote a letter to Miller around 5 years ago.. Would you like to see it? (Please say yes!)

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

You aren't addressing the statement made by Ken Miller.

Imagine if in the chimpanzee you have DNA sequence

Chromosome AATTATCG next to chromosome ATGCCTGA. And in human beings you have a single chromosome ATCGATGCCTGA (notice the genetics are identical) and in between the two original sets, you have a telemere that is no longer at the end of your chromosome.

The probability of it being anything but a fusion site is inifinitesimally small.

Can someone propose an alternative to a fusion? Sure.

But probability suggests that the theory of evolution has absolutely no issue with this.

And please, next time you want to quote a creationist website, just post a link. No need to copy and paste multiple pages of text.

"You aren't addressing the statement made by Ken Miller."

And YOU have refused to answer my question about chromosome count being evidence for common ancestry.. I will try once more... IS IT??


BTW Kenneth Miller has ZERO credibility as he was destroyed by Behe on Irreducible complexity

How irreducible complexity has destroyed the religion of Darwinism
2020-02-19
John Keefe
1248 Comments


If you can’t observe it, test it, reproduce it or falsify it then it’s not science. At best it is a philosophy at worst it’s a religion.

Probably one of the most amazing propulsion systems is one found in a bacteria called a flagellum. This microscopic machine is driven by a motor with distinct mechanical parts it resembles a humanly designed rotary engine with a universal joint, bushings, a stator, rotor and a driveshaft with its own clutch and braking system. In some bacteria, it is clocked at a hundred thousand rotations per minute and it is near 100% efficient plus it can change directions in a split second.

This flagellum is one of many microscopic machines found within cells and represents irreducible complexity at its finest. Like a mousetrap, if you remove one component it has no function. And it was this biological machine that was at the heart of the legal challenges to intelligent design. For many evolutionists, this trial stood as confirmation that irreducible complexity was a discredited idea within intelligent design.

This became a court case because one school district put a disclaimer in their evolutionary curriculum giving students an option in understanding evolution in biology which included a reference to a book in the school’s library. For evolutionist this was blasphemy and thus the court case was instituted to stop this heresy. I find it odd that some think judges can be the arbiter of what is true and not true in science. The judge in this case, who we expect to be open-minded and impartial bragged he was going to watch a highly fictionalized movie concerning the scopes trial as he prepared for this case. So it was obvious to most in the intelligent design community that this was not going to turn out well. And sure enough, the judge ruled against the school district.

Now here are the interesting facts, the evolutionist had a biologist testify that this machine had evolved from another similar machine that looks somewhat similar yet had a completely different function. Kenneth Miller was the biologist that presented evidence against the concept that if you take parts away from the flagellum it would not be functional. He presented a machine called the type III secretion system that is missing 30 components of the flagellum yet it functions. But it’s function is completely different than the flagellum even though its structure looks similar. What he didn’t do in his research was point out that if you start to add back those 30 missing protein components each of them would have absolutely no function and thus natural selection would have eliminated them before the other 30 could have theoretically been added to make a functional flagellum. But that’s not the only problem with his argument after the trial it was later found that the flagellum preceded the type III secretion system. In other words it was found in nature before the type III secretion system. If that would have been known at the trial the argument would’ve disintegrated. Yet today most evolutionists think the type III secretion system destroyed the irreducible complexity argument that intelligent design puts forth.



This is much like the Miller-Urey experiment where even today many textbooks claim this experiment shows how life could have developed without any intelligence. The only problem with the Miller experiment is that it produced equal amounts of right and left-handed amino acids which would be toxic to life. That’s why Miller never repeated his experiment because he knew it was a failure even though his colleagues and the news media misrepresented it as a success.

It is interesting how these misrepresentations and falsehoods are components of Darwinism. One of the scientists that presented testimony in this trial indicating that evolution could account for the development of the flagellum from the type III secretion system published in research a year later that science had no idea how that progression could happen under Darwinian mechanisms. (From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella in nature reviews microbiology)





Have you been led to believe that irreducible complexity has been disproven?



Do the facts of this misrepresentation change your view on irreducible complexity?



How does your worldview affect what you accept as science?

 

[coffee4u]

Transitional forms actually are not defined based on whether a species biologically evolved into another or if that species went extinct.

Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance.

For example, with tiktaalik, there is a 99% chance that tiktaaliks lineage went extinct at some point in time. Which means that it likely isn't our direct ancestor. But what makes tiktaalik a transitional form isn't whether or not it was our ancestor. What makes it transitional is that it is a fish with legs which appeared at a time after fish and before animals with legs, ie it's morphology and position in the geologic column.

So technically this is an incorrect statement. It is a laymen's understanding, not a scientific stance.

Ah yes, the 'timing' which of course is based on more evolutionary 'proof' to back itself up with. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages.

Absolute dating is used to determine the precise age of a rock or fossil through radiometric dating methods.

"a technique which is used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed."

Dates by men who weren't there and, do not know everything but are arrogant enough to think they do. Based on their assumptions rocks or fossils are dated and others can simply date a fossil from the rocks alone because that has already been 'proved'. Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate? This way they can nicely back each other up for the conclusions that they want, and so 'prove' a fossil is 6 million years old.

 

[coffee4u]

No Thanks, If I post a link some people wont open it.. I want EVERYONE to see it.. I want to expose the truth for all to see...

I wrote a letter to Miller around 5 years ago.. Would you like to see it? (Please say yes!)

Yes!

 

[Job 33:6]

"You can call it whatever you want, but point mutations introduce new DNA to a species. it is not DNA that is pre-existed in the species it is completely new. and by new what I mean is that this DNA has not existed in the species prior to the mutation."

NOPE. It is NOT "completely new" like you assert.. Do you know more than David Demick about the subject? I guess I shouldn't even have to ask.. LOL

In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:
'Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been
catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations.

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman,"


The EVOLUTIONIST George G. Simpson performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years.

This doesn't address my post. You've changed the subject.

Re-read post 239 and try to stay on topic:
Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

You aren't acknowledging the fact that duplications quantitatively double regions of DNA, thereby quantitatively increasing our number of genes and point mutations change DNA into new sequences, thereby producing new genes that hadn't previously existed.

 

[Job 33:6]

"You aren't addressing the statement made by Ken Miller."

And YOU have refused to answer my question about chromosome count being evidence for common ancestry.. I will try once more... IS IT??


BTW Kenneth Miller has ZERO credibility as he was destroyed by Behe on Irreducible complexity

How irreducible complexity has destroyed the religion of Darwinism
2020-02-19
John Keefe
1248 Comments


If you can’t observe it, test it, reproduce it or falsify it then it’s not science. At best it is a philosophy at worst it’s a religion.

Probably one of the most amazing propulsion systems is one found in a bacteria called a flagellum. This microscopic machine is driven by a motor with distinct mechanical parts it resembles a humanly designed rotary engine with a universal joint, bushings, a stator, rotor and a driveshaft with its own clutch and braking system. In some bacteria, it is clocked at a hundred thousand rotations per minute and it is near 100% efficient plus it can change directions in a split second.

This flagellum is one of many microscopic machines found within cells and represents irreducible complexity at its finest. Like a mousetrap, if you remove one component it has no function. And it was this biological machine that was at the heart of the legal challenges to intelligent design. For many evolutionists, this trial stood as confirmation that irreducible complexity was a discredited idea within intelligent design.

This became a court case because one school district put a disclaimer in their evolutionary curriculum giving students an option in understanding evolution in biology which included a reference to a book in the school’s library. For evolutionist this was blasphemy and thus the court case was instituted to stop this heresy. I find it odd that some think judges can be the arbiter of what is true and not true in science. The judge in this case, who we expect to be open-minded and impartial bragged he was going to watch a highly fictionalized movie concerning the scopes trial as he prepared for this case. So it was obvious to most in the intelligent design community that this was not going to turn out well. And sure enough, the judge ruled against the school district.

Now here are the interesting facts, the evolutionist had a biologist testify that this machine had evolved from another similar machine that looks somewhat similar yet had a completely different function. Kenneth Miller was the biologist that presented evidence against the concept that if you take parts away from the flagellum it would not be functional. He presented a machine called the type III secretion system that is missing 30 components of the flagellum yet it functions. But it’s function is completely different than the flagellum even though its structure looks similar. What he didn’t do in his research was point out that if you start to add back those 30 missing protein components each of them would have absolutely no function and thus natural selection would have eliminated them before the other 30 could have theoretically been added to make a functional flagellum. But that’s not the only problem with his argument after the trial it was later found that the flagellum preceded the type III secretion system. In other words it was found in nature before the type III secretion system. If that would have been known at the trial the argument would’ve disintegrated. Yet today most evolutionists think the type III secretion system destroyed the irreducible complexity argument that intelligent design puts forth.



This is much like the Miller-Urey experiment where even today many textbooks claim this experiment shows how life could have developed without any intelligence. The only problem with the Miller experiment is that it produced equal amounts of right and left-handed amino acids which would be toxic to life. That’s why Miller never repeated his experiment because he knew it was a failure even though his colleagues and the news media misrepresented it as a success.

It is interesting how these misrepresentations and falsehoods are components of Darwinism. One of the scientists that presented testimony in this trial indicating that evolution could account for the development of the flagellum from the type III secretion system published in research a year later that science had no idea how that progression could happen under Darwinian mechanisms. (From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella in nature reviews microbiology)





Have you been led to believe that irreducible complexity has been disproven?



Do the facts of this misrepresentation change your view on irreducible complexity?



How does your worldview affect what you accept as science?

Again, you aren't responding to my post.

See post #242:
Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

 

[Job 33:6]

"Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance."

Yes, we know... It's called "Circular Reasoning 101"

OR ARE WE TO ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT THAN THESE PROMINENT GEOLOGISTS AND SCIENTISTS DO.??.. SHOULDNT BE HARD.,.. AFTER ALL, YOU KNOW MORE THAN THE JUDEO CHRISTIAN GOD DOES ABOUT HIS CREATION!! LOL

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because CIRCULARITY is inherent in the derivation of time scales." J. E. O'Rourke

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of CIRCULAR REASONING if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Geologist Dr. Ronald West, Kansas State University.

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious CIRCULARITY." B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6

. H. RASTAL, Cambridge University, "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here ARGUING IN A CIRCLE. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the organisms that they contain." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNIA, Vol.X, p.168

NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. "And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" TIME FRAMES, p.52

TOM KEMP, Oxford, "A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108

D. B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, "But the danger of CIRCULARITY is still present.... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation....for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.", Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves CIRCULARITY has a certain amount of validity...Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.",

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first. — The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age." J E O R

This, yet again, isn't responding to my words. You're changing the subject.

The following statement:
Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance.

Is not circular. It's just stating that transitional are determined based on physical morphology and stratigraphic position. Not necessarily on whether or not they went extinct.

The above statement has nothing to do with dating rocks, you're changing the subject rather than addressing my words.

 

[Job 33:6]

"ie it's morphology and position in the geologic column."

LOL , Actually there are only 2 places on planet Earth where the Geologic Column can be found!

(Scroll down for the answer)

GEOLOGIC COLUMN?

Speaking of the non existent "Geologic Column" Are we to assume that "For millions of years" there was a light dusting of limestone that laid out perfectly with no erosion marks only to ABRUPTLY change to light dusting of sandstone all laid out perfectly even, TOP AND BOTTOM!! Then a continuous dusting of coal for a few million years perfectly even on top and bottom then BACK to limestone for a few million then ABRUPTLY change to a light Shale rainfall and THEN Arkose for a few million THEN Siltstone.. All Perfectly laid out in order top and bottom...

Where did all of this material come from?? Outer Space??

All of this mental and emotional contortions just to deny the obvious? That it was all laid out due to hydrologic sorting from the cataclysmic flood of Noah from Genesis AND that Jesus confirmed happened? BTW Are whales and trees not going to rot completely over the "millions of years" while the sediments form over them? ("Polystrate Fossils")

Just more silver bullets that pierce the corpse of Satan's greatest lie of Evolutionism....

"37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matt 24

(1) The Textbooks
(2) The Imagination of Atheists / Oval-Earthers

Again, changing the subject rather than addressing the statement.

You're response is also irrelevant. How much the geologic column is present in any given location is irrelevant to stratigraphic succession. Just as if I took a word "spaghetti", it is irrelevant whether or not the full alphabet is present when discussing the order of the letters.

 

[Amittai]

To me, a kind of notion sometimes called theistic evolution (which Newman didn't seem to altogether rule out) never claimed to deny the human faculties of initiative, conscience, discretion, intellect, soul, spirit, which can be engaged to become stronger than instinct, or consciously reinforce good instinct (i.e harmonious with our nature) that have evidently become "infused" in our mammalian frame. Neither did it claim to pin down how or from where. The same goes for other aspects of any creation process(es).

Thus I thought "theistic evolution" was a kind of ball park for notions that might mesh with hypotheses, and the fact that it needn't conflict with religious teaching didn't by any means make it part of religious teaching. In my young day we were poor and innocent but by golly we were intellectually sophisticated and solidly logical.

Investigating the unrepeatable must be done and depends on honest and true cautions and alertness in induction, not false ones.

The aptly pointed out weakness in the circularity of some supposed measurement criteria while not shedding light on an actual need for ideas of this kind, hint (badly) at a small part of the territory such ideas may potentially possibly address.

Confusion will increase as long as "sufficient" people don't factor in elements of contingency that Gould and Eldredge, for example, are trying to flag up, it is to actually ignore and deny the work people like that put in on it. They have disagreed that "progress" is a biological value. That they apparently adhere to "conventional chronology" I take as merely a heuristic for depiction's sake.

Evolution, including theistic versions, are so jelly-like and liquid, it doesn't sufficiently match with any "need". The gut feelings aren't being allowed to accord with real data allegedly cited, and vice versa.

Darwin later plumped for antihumanism under the overwhelming influence of Spencer and Huxley. These two invented "social Darwinism". Earlier, he was probably besotted by the fashionable overemphasis on diachronic visualisations. For me, this doesn't give me any excuse for a literally literalist take on the first chapters of Genesis. (The meaning is intended to be hung on the text, because there is no text without a meaning, hence we cannot have the meaning without the text. To say they are one and the same thing is nominalism.) Original sin is the fact of the infusing: the scope of will to irresponsibly fail to integrate our faculties responsibly according to God's values for mankind (respecting others' integrity).

 

[Amittai]

...

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman,"


The EVOLUTIONIST George G. Simpson performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years.

 

[Job 33:6]

"He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years."

This doesnt make any sense. At best it is a quote mine. There is nothing sourced with the statement. Research is published on a regular basis describing beneficial mutations.

 

[Amittai]

"He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years."

This doesnt make any sense. At best it is a quote mine. There is nothing sourced with the statement. Research is published on a regular basis describing beneficial mutations.

I think they balance each other out and jointly, do not prove "progress" as a biological value.

I infer a damping / stabilising / aesthetising effect and I think next to no work has been done on the interplay of that with genetic variations, other than the incipient epigenetics.

This part of the debate reminded me that some Peirceans have spoken of the "methodeutic * of quotation wars".

* = a kind of rhetoric

 

[Job 33:6]

I think they balance each other out and jointly, do not prove "progress" as a biological value.

I infer a damping / stabilising / aesthetising effect and I think next to no work has been done on the interplay of that with genetic variations, other than the incipient epigenetics.

This part of the debate reminded me that some Peirceans have spoken of the "methodeutic * of quotation wars".

* = a kind of rhetoric

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

But it is true that evolution is not a ladder, as the common saying goes.

I consider the following analogy. Say fish evolve to walk on land. A fish has to lose its superior ability to swim. Someone could argue that land animals can't swim as good as fish and therefore such change would be considered "de-evolution". But it's not so much about a species individual abilities as it is about how well a species survives.

Mutations have been recorded on countless occasions to fixate to a species genome after increasing fitness and helping the species live longer. This is by definition "beneficial".

What @jJIM THINNSEN is claiming only happens every 200 billion years, is actually recorded on a regular basis in scientific publications every month.

The population genetics of mutations: good, bad and indifferent

 

[Job 33:6]

Ah yes, the 'timing' which of course is based on more evolutionary 'proof' to back itself up with. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages.

Absolute dating is used to determine the precise age of a rock or fossil through radiometric dating methods.

Your response is inadequate (and you're changing the subject). Relative dating involves many concepts but isn't specific to anything of "known ages", hence why it is called "relative" and not "absolute". Defining transitional fossils ultimately involves methodology specific to superposition (which layers are on top and which are on bottom).

I can know that rock layers deep underground are timing/temporally older than rocks at shallower depths because rocks deep underground must predate shallow rocks, else the shallow rocks would be logically floating over empty space.

None of the above has anything to do with radiometric dating.

And with this, you haven't addressed my post:

Transitional forms actually are not defined based on whether a species biologically evolved into another or if that species went extinct.

Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology (the measured shapes and sizes of their bones) the timing of their appearance (superpositional succession, ie which bones are in lower rocks, which are in higher rocks). None of this has anything to do with radiometric dating.

For example, with tiktaalik, there is a 99% chance that tiktaaliks lineage went extinct at some point in time. Which means that it likely isn't our direct ancestor. But what makes tiktaalik a transitional form isn't whether or not it was our ancestor. What makes it transitional is that it is a fish with legs (measured morphology) which appeared at a time after fish and before animals with legs (in rocks shallower than fish but deeper than amphibians), ie it's morphology and position in the geologic column.

So technically this is an incorrect statement. It is a laymen's understanding, not a scientific stance.

 

[Amittai]

I agree with you Komatiite in your 274 and 275 about survival and transitional forms. I feel so many people muddy the waters by not accepting these points. As I see it, you aren't denying cases of genuine circular reasoning where it has existed. Much reasoning turns out not to be as circular as it might casually look.

Not only did certain fishlike or amphibianlike or reptilelike or perhaps even mammallike animals get eliminated in a disaster, some failed to thrive as species in subsequent ecosystems. Major mutations may have occurred prior to the disaster, while minor ones occur all the time. Hence your figure for those beneficial to survival of a species, is better than the 274 billion cited.

What species get wiped out or not, as the ecosystem changes, is not pressure to mutate, it is contingent survival or not of already mutated forms.

Any "cause" of changing rates of mutation is a separate contingency.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree with you Komatiite in your 274 and 275 about survival and transitional forms. I feel so many people muddy the waters by not accepting these points. As I see it, you aren't denying cases of genuine circular reasoning where it has existed. Much reasoning turns out not to be as circular as it might casually look.

Not only did certain fishlike or amphibianlike or reptilelike or perhaps even mammallike animals get eliminated in a disaster, some failed to thrive as species in subsequent ecosystems. Major mutations may have occurred prior to the disaster, while minor ones occur all the time. Hence your figure for those beneficial to survival of a species, is better than the 274 billion cited.

What species get wiped out or not, as the ecosystem changes, is not pressure to mutate, it is contingent survival or not of already mutated forms.

Any "cause" of changing rates of mutation is a separate contingency.

I had to read this a few times to understand. I would agree with this in principal.

I would just note that in the fossil succession, there are some 5+ major disasters in which many species died.

 

[Amittai]

... But it's not so much about a species individual abilities as it is about how well a species survives. 1

Mutations have been recorded on countless occasions to fixate to a species genome after increasing fitness and helping the species live longer. This is by definition "beneficial".

...

This must be part of the stabilising process then. "Benefit" does not = "progress".

1: survives, in a contingently changed ecosphere

 

[Amittai]

...

What species get wiped out or not, as the ecosystem changes, is not pressure to mutate, it is contingent survival or not of already mutated forms. ...

That should probably read: is often not, is not necessarily, but such phrases might seem weak. Even if occurrences co-occur, I mean them to be very distinct in character.

 

[jJIM THINNSEN]

This, yet again, isn't responding to my words. You're changing the subject.

The following statement:
Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance.

Is not circular. It's just stating that transitional are determined based on physical morphology and stratigraphic position. Not necessarily on whether or not they went extinct.

The above statement has nothing to do with dating rocks, you're changing the subject rather than addressing my words.

"The following statement:
Transitional forms are actually determined based on their morphology and the timing of their appearance."​

"Is not circular."

LOL Even though MANY prominent Evolutionary Geologists, Paleontologists and Scientists admit that it IS circular..

Got it.... YOU know more about the subject than THEY do... But then again, YOU know more about the Creation and the Flood of Noah than God and his Son do.... Haahahah

Maybe it is time for you to become born again of the spirit and become a member of the family of God so that Satan's lie of Evolutionism will be exposed to the light and the blinding scales will be removed from your eyes..... I have NEVER met an Oval-Earther (TE) who has been born again... EVER.... Will you be the first? I doubt it..

Here is ANOTHER good video that exposes Satans greatest lie of Evolutionism...

I know YOU wont watch it as you have no desire for the truth.. but maybe others will..

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."

(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)