So how do your biblical hypotheses explain Darwin's finches and the Wallace line, and why there are six distinct bio-geographical zones, and why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the area around Mt Ararat in Turkey?
You have just eliminated all the branches in the nested hierarchy. If you were at the Alamo we'd all be wearing sombreros.
The number of mutations is probably not now ascertainable, however it is possible to make a very rough estimate of the number of generations involved. The number of mutations will be larger than the number of generations since each new offspring will in general have more than one mutation.
| | From | To | Elapsed | Generation Time | Number of Generations | | Examples | |
1 | Single celled prokaryote | 3.5Ba | 2Ba | 1.5By | 6 hour | 2191500000000 | | E. coli | 30 mins |
2 | Single celled eukaryote | 2Ba | 500Ma | 1.5By | 1 day | 547875000000 | | Paramecium | 6 hours |
3 | Simple Multicellular Chordate | 500Ma | 400Ma | 100My | 6 months | 200000000 | | Amphioxus | 1 month |
4 | Vertebrate fish | 400Ma | 350Ma | 50My | 1 year | 50000000 | | Zebra Fish | 4 months |
5 | Amphibian | 350Ma | 275Ma | 75My | 2 years | 37500000 | | Frog | 1 year |
6 | Reptile | 275Ma | 200Ma | 75My | 3 years | 25000000 | | Gekko | 2 years |
7 | Mammal | 200Ma | 70Ma | 130My | 5 years | 26000000 | | Rat | 6 weeks |
8 | Primate | 70Ma | 2Ma | 68My | 10 years | 6800000 | | Macaque | 4 years |
9 | Homo/Human | 2Ma | Present | 2My | 20 years | 100000 | | Human | 20 years |
| | | | | | | | | |
Total Generations | | | | | | 2739720400000 | | | |
Not speaking as an ID associate, ID would explain differentiation by emphasizing parts of DNA over another. As for example, woollier sheep are produced through artificial selection by breeding woollier sheep with other woollier sheep. There are no new genes produced in the process. In the same process, environmental conditions cause one group to flourish over another using existing DNA making the whole process part of a design. This not to say that beneficial mutations cannot occur but are rare. And unless they provide some immediate benefit or fall in sync with a change in environment, might even get eliminated. But where evolution hits a wall is in the area of coordinated multiple mutations which is the majority of the traits. These traits have to be achieved without the benefit of natural selection since there is no benefit provided by any of the intermediate mutations until the trait has provided the benefit. This requires foresight with the end function in mind. Natural selection, random mutations and so on, are measurable evolutionary forces but they fall short in producing these traits as well and producing new genes, organs, and or species.
IOW your biblical hypotheses can't explain Darwin's finches and the Wallace line, and why there are six distinct bio-geographical zones, and why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the area around Mt Ararat in Turkey.
No, and that is not its purpose.
So what is the purpose of the biblical hypothesis if it can't explain Darwin's finches and the Wallace line, and why there are six distinct bio-geographical zones, and why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the area around Mt Ararat in Turkey.
What is the biblical hypothesis? I was assuming it was biblical scripture in general.
Lol! What makes a sheep woollier if not their genes? How is woolliness passed down to the next generation without being in the genes? How are some sheep more wooly than others without the difference being in different genes? How did the genes between sheep become different without mutation?
Yes, the that trait is in the genes and selective breeding is the mechanism. If new genes were created in this process, it would be a complete validation of evolution. There would no need for the smoking gun evidence currently on display. You wouldn't need the hype that was created shortly after in the LTEE where E. coli gained the ability to digest citrus. And BTW the LTEE validated ID more than Darwinism.
It has not been shown that mutations can create genes. First of all mutations don't create anything because natural selection is the only force given credit for innovation and it can't create genes either.
For someone who claims to be a pillar of knowledge, this is not a question that I would want to hang my hat on. First of all DNA is composed of more than 30% switches that cause the gene to be turned on or off depending on the organ. A kidney cell does not require the conductive powers of nerve cell, and heart cells behave differently than either these and are all determined by switches all ready present in the DNA. And secondly, are you claiming that a mutation switches the gene on or off? Woolliness is not created by a mutation and how would a mutation know that the breeder was making plans to breed woollier sheep? The genes for woollier sheep are passed on to the next generation and all the switching is handled by the pre-established mechanisms.
Firstly, no one claims that natural selection creates new genes. Mutations create new genes. That is what a mutation is, a novel arrangement resulting in a novel gene. Natural selection, just like selective breeding, determines which new genes are handed on to the next generation. The mutation doesn't "know" that extra woolliness is required. The selection mechanism, whether artificial or natural, merely selects the gene that most fits the environmental need. In this case, it is the farmer selecting the most wooly of his sheep. It could be exceptionally cold weather selecting the most wooly sheep. The effect is the same. The gene with the most wooly mutation will proliferate over time.
Without gene mutations how does your biblical hypothesis explain the variability within a species if an intelligent designer only created one breeding pair for each kind, and that in the case of humans a genetically identical person was cloned from some rib tissue as described in Gen 2?
You are arguing against a straw man. To my knowledge no one has ever said that there are no mutations and ABO blood group is just some fabrication in your straw man that you feel addresses the issues to which you seem unclear.
Then you have no problem with the fact that through all the mutations that have been directed at fruit flies, the result has always been, a normal fruit fly, a disabled fruit fly or a dead fruit fly. Mutations are a deleterious force and beneficial mutations are few and far between. And your statement that mutations create anything is not part of your mainstream view point. It has always been mutations mixed with natural selection. Where natural selection is the creative force.
If switches were genes then they would be part of the protein encoding DNA and over 30% of DNA would be directed at coding genes. We all know that is not the case so your expertise in the field has been debunked. The majority of the switches were discovered by the recent ENCODE project in the DNA that had been labeled junk so no need to go any further than this.
Again your sources are lying to you. Mutations create a range ov new variations in genes. Natural selection selects from that range of variations. Mutations increase the number of variations while natural selection reduced the number of variations. Natural selection is anti-creative because it eliminates some of the variations that mutations create.
. I apologise. I didn't realise just how ignorant you are of how evolution works. Natural selection creates nothing. There is a clue in the name. It selects from things that have already been created. The creative force is the mutation, which creates blindly, all manner of novel things, some of which will be diseased or deformed, some of which will appear normal and some of which will have an advantage over the original form. Natural selection weeds out the damaged and diseased, while giving preferential treatment to the advantaged. Again, all completely blind. No forethought or intelligence is required. The next generation, the new baseline, will have an increased proportion of those lucky organisms with the beneficial mutation, inherited from their lucky parents.
You are confusing yourself. Switches are encoded in DNA. They are proteins that turn genes on or off. Proteins are manufactured by DNA coding. Switches are as liable to mutation as any other part of the genome.
Do you think you could at least keep your spam in the relevant thread? Or is that too much to ask?