No mutations required.

[Temujin]

Are you claiming that leucism doesn't happen?

No, he is asking you why you believe the scientific explanation for why it does and what you believe that understanding is based on.

 

[CrowCross]

No, he is asking you why you believe the scientific explanation for why it does and what you believe that understanding is based on.

I'm not really going to go round and round with mikeT anymore on this issue.

The point of the post is that major changges can be brought about by the simple recombination of genetics.

 

[rossum]

Why should it be myth especially when I pointed out the inspired authors of the bible didn't present is as so?
Here's an example....Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam,

Adam having descendants is not a problem. Adam being 6,000 years ago is not a problem. Adam being the first human is. We have the remains of humans older than that.

Seems kinda strange coming from one who believes any human could be reborn as an animal....or, any animal could be reborn as human. Is there no such thing as supernatural power...that can manifest in different ways?

Your understanding of Buddhism is faulty. A human reborn as an animal will not be able to speak.

That question has already been addressed ...here it is again:
Considering the Hylonomus were buried as a result of the advancing flood waters I would not expect to see birds buried in the same flood deposited strata in the so-called geological column considering the birds had a means of escaping that stage of the flood.

I am talking about the time after the Fall and before the Flood. Birds, and other animals, could die during that time and could be fossilised. A bird falling into a river, and being buried in the sediments are the bottom of the river will be fossilised.

Even before the Fall, there would have been footprints, some of which could fossilise. Where are your bird footprints from before Hylonomus?

Birds that die and crash to the ground typically don't fossilize....

But birds that die and fall into water can fossilise. That is the way a lot of Archaeopteryx fossils were formed. The Solnhofen Lagoons were often very salty and anoxic, so carcasses were not destroyed by predators.

Was Hylonomus really found above Tiktaalik?

Yes.

In fact there are Tiktaalik like trackways supposedly older than Tiktaalik.

Irrelevant. Why didn't whatever made those tracks survive the Flood better than Hylonomus? Anything "Tiktaalik like" would have been a fish-with-legs or a very early amphibian. Either would be better at surviving in water than Hylonomus.

 

[mikeT]

I'm not really going to go round and round with mikeT anymore on this issue.

We haven't gone round a single time yet. Not once.

The reason you've refused to answer the question is because you can't justify your blind trust of that scientific claim, and especially not in the face of your ubiquitous science denialism here.

The only reason you assume that science is right on this point is because it's consistent with your narrative. Find a scientific claim which contradicts that narrative, and you'll become a rabid science skeptic in a flash.

 

[CrowCross]

Adam having descendants is not a problem. Adam being 6,000 years ago is not a problem. Adam being the first human is. We have the remains of humans older than that.

No we don't. As shown previously the dting techniques are flawed. You need to re-adjust to the truth.

Your understanding of Buddhism is faulty. A human reborn as an animal will not be able to speak.

I never said they would....I was indicating the ability of the supernatural world. Do you now deny there is a supernatural world?

I am talking about the time after the Fall and before the Flood. Birds, and other animals, could die during that time and could be fossilised. A bird falling into a river, and being buried in the sediments are the bottom of the river will be fossilised.

They could. But the flood would have destroyed these fossils.

Even before the Fall, there would have been footprints, some of which could fossilise. Where are your bird footprints from before Hylonomus?

There could be footprints...after all we have these flood era footprints....

But birds that die and fall into water can fossilise. That is the way a lot of Archaeopteryx fossils were formed. The Solnhofen Lagoons were often very salty and anoxic, so carcasses were not destroyed by predators.

Yup, and the flood of Noah produced such environments.

Yes.

Can you prove it? I know you'll be tempted to use circular logic.

Irrelevant. Why didn't whatever made those tracks survive the Flood better than Hylonomus? Anything "Tiktaalik like" would have been a fish-with-legs or a very early amphibian. Either would be better at surviving in water than Hylonomus.

We have similiar creatures today...more than likely a result of leucism in which you and the other evos here seem to be arguing against.

 

[CrowCross]

We haven't gone round a single time yet. Not once.

The reason you've refused to answer the question is because you can't justify your blind trust of that scientific claim, and especially not in the face of your ubiquitous science denialism here.

The only reason you assume that science is right on this point is because it's consistent with your narrative. Find a scientific claim which contradicts that narrative, and you'll become a rabid science skeptic in a flash.

Do you not know that leucism is consistent with the narrative of micro-evolution?

Do we also need to go round and round on this point?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Parts of the Bible have been shown to be true. Parts have been shown to be false. Parts are contradictory. Parts are future prophecies, so are currently undecided. The Bible is a mixture of different parts; it is an error to treat all its parts in the same way. For example:

"You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands." – Isaiah 55:12​

Is it "true and accurate" that mountains can sing and that trees can clap their hands?

You need to treat the myths in Genesis the same way as you treat this poetry in Isaiah. Neither is a science text to be taken literally.

Come on, rossum, the Bible was only using how humans explain things. If I will show you from Darwin's book that Darwin said that,

"...reason tells me..", will you also believe and accept that REASON had directly really talked to Darwin?


On the Origin of Stupidity


"Hey, Darwin, I am reason. You are busy writing your book about Evolution. Will you mind sharing you my knowledge?".

"Hi, Reason, I have no reason to use you. I have Evolution, you know".

 

[rossum]

No we don't. As shown previously the d(a)ting techniques are flawed. You need to re-adjust to the truth.

You have claimed, not shown, that dating techniques are faulty. Your claims are false.

They could. But the flood would have destroyed these fossils.

Another claim without evidence.

There could be footprints...after all we have these flood era footprints....

The Paluxy dinosaur tracks? If you believe there are human tracks there, then I have this bridge I can sell you.

Yup, and the flood of Noah produced such environments.

Obviously wrong. Rainwater is fresh, not saline. Rain would have reduced the salinity, not increased it. Highly saline environments are not found in a flood.

 

[rossum]

Come on, rossum, the Bible was only using how humans explain things. If I will show you from Darwin's book that Darwin said that,

"...reason tells me..", will you also believe and accept that REASON had directly really talked to Darwin?

Darwin is not scripture. I do not interpret every word in Darwin's works as literally true, the way some Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

A lot of new information has been added to the theory of evolution since 1859.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Darwin is not scripture. I do not interpret every word in Darwin's works as literally true, the way some Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

A lot of new information has been added to the theory of evolution since 1859.

Darwin was talking about science, thus, every explanations that he had claimed and written should either be criticized or supported, that is the differences between religion and science.

Evolution is a religion, per your post.

 

[Temujin]

Darwin was talking about science, thus, every explanations that he had claimed and written should either be criticized or supported, that is the differences between religion and science.

Evolution is a religion, per your post.

Nonsense. Read again the sentence "A lot of new information has been added to the theory of evolution since 1859.". Darwin's ideas have been added to, amended and in some cases discarded, in the light of evidence discovered since his time. The essential characteristic of evolution remains, but were he here to see it now, he would be amazed, and delighted at how much more we know now than he ever did.

 

[Tiburon]

I have - nowhere therein are mutations mentioned.

It's as though the writers didn't even know about genes...

Then why is it called Genes is?

 

[vibise]

Difference in colour is not an "enormous variation".

"Enormous variation" would be an inability to co-reproduce.

Actually, many of those mutations, if not most, also affect systems other than coat color.

The mutations in the Kit gene were initially discovered as they caused spotting variants in coat color, but more importantly this gene encodes a tyrosine kinase that functions in various signal transduction pathways and affects hematopoiesis, fertility and cell adhesion and proliferation of mast and erythroid cells.

So yes coat color genes do in fact govern much more than what color an animal is.