Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Nor does it seem that a multiplicit mutagenics that result in non-interbreeding related intergrade species strike a logical chord...
Moreover how DNA genes are expressed is a function of the DNA code itself. One doesn't get a permanent change in expression pattern without a permanent change in the underlying DNA regulatory sequences that control the expression of the genes.
Variation within a species IS a measure of the difference in DNA among members of the species. If variation happens “rapidly” then obviously you are proposing that DNA change within the species happens “rapidly”.
How do you propose that variation in genetic expression can happen such that a ‘badger’ becomes different than a ‘wolverine’ without a change in the underlying DNA? Do you propose that both came from the same primordial “kind” WITHOUT a change in DNA? Just a matter of opinion that makes a Badger different than a Wolverine?
What is the difference that would cause a change in genetic expression, and how is this accomplished “rapidly” enough that all the “kinds” that could fit on the Ark could evolve into all known species upon the Earth?
We see beneficial mutations (which is NOT synonymous with evolution) all the time in experimental populations, in nature, and in our domesticated animals. The reason a Dachshund is different than a Wolf is because of variations in the DNA, and the artificial selection of ‘beneficial’ traits for short limbs, long ears, etc, that arose or existed in the population.
Nor do they ever acknowledge allopatric speciation, even though it is one of the most easily understood - and demonstrated - speciation events. Heck, it’s how Darwin came to put all the pieces of his theory together.
Of course, “They’re still finches/birds!” they will cry. True, but when, over time, those finches no longer interbreed for a variety of reasons - BEYOND geographic barriers, they’ve become distinct species.
Within an hour or so, I would think even the most ardent creationist would accept that. That’s when we’ll hear about “kinds” and such. But it’s a step I guess.
As ridiculous a spectacle as a bunch of special ed students taking the football and trying to compete against the pro’s without even an understanding of the rules by which the game is played.
To credibly refute or reject something one must first be able to understand it. But like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland “verdict first, trial after”.
The “quote” had nothing to do with your argument. Therefore, strawman.
You lose.
So many valedictorians from the Sunshine school, eh?
I’ve also noticed a great deal of mistaking genotype with phenotype... two ducks may not walk alike, look alike or sound alike yet are genotypically similar and phenotypically not and visa-versa.
Terminology is important. “Kind” is not a proper nomenclature.
Where is my AIDS thread you promised?
I thought most creationists were YECers? At least the ones ve met on FR.
It is totally devastating for the evo position.
No, I’m saying those variations are limited to within the species and are already predetermined by the info within the DNA.
God programmed those polymorphisms into the genomes. Point mutations cannot happen naturally! The DNA “knows” if it occurred by radiation or a chemical mutagen and self destructs the whole cell. It will only accept changes by the Designer.
I said, you can find the already posted AIDS threads by typing in keyword “AIDS”. If you can’t even manage to figure out how to do that, how can you possibly expect to understand even the basics of the AIDS scandal?
I dont want an already posted old AIDS thread. I thought you said you were going to dedicate a new AIDS thread especially for me.
How could a “kind” change “rapidly” into many different species without an underlying change in DNA that would then change the gene expression?
Where does this “variation” in either DNA or gene expression come from? And why do creationists assume it must happen thousands of times faster than any evolutionary biologist ever proposed? And how would this “rapid” change in “variation” somehow stop at the “kind” level?
How about addressing the reason it is called the Theory of Evolution instead of the Evolutionary Principle? It is a model that fits the facts and is revised, as necessary, as more data becomes available. An irony that seems to be lost on most YEC types is that theories evolve....who'd a thunk?
But I want my own AIDS thread! I want AIDS!
There, fixed it for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.