Originally posted by Jim Scott
1. Why/How do virus' (timely huh?) mutate? Mutation is a destructive force. A virus is arrested by a white blood cell because the wbc can connect
with it. If it cannot, the virus is free to multiply. If, for example, you were a virus and you had two feet and two arms, you could link up with
me, a wbc, because my two feet and two arms would grab yours. If, however, I could not link with you because you lost an arm, you would be free to
multiply. Your loss of an arm is a mutation. It is not an improvement, but allows you to multiply.
2. How can two blue eyed parents have a brown eyed child? Recessive genes. Science says we are all related if you go back about 1500 years. Hence,
you have the genes of many ancestors. When you have children, you roll the DNA dice. What comes up is not always predictable. One fellow I knew had
a recessive gene for a disease. So happened his wife did, too. Neither knew it, but their child was born with it.
3. Why does cross-pollination exist/work? Plants give life to their seed. The seed establishes that there will be cross-pollination.
4. How does creationism account for "flawed" species in the fossil record? The world had 70 phyla, now has 30. We are in a process of
extinction, not evolution.
5. How is it possible to predict livestock traits in a population through selective breeding? Prediction is not always occurring. Rather, one hopes
for the proper outcome. Sometimes you don't get what you want.
So, how does any of this point to creationism. Seems like common sense answers to me. How was this proven to be so and how was the creator
responsible? Also you, more than once, allude to de-evolution. Is this a tenant or law of creationism? Since created, the universe is in a state of
decay? Leading to what? Why the opinion of decay, if the universe was created perfectly and the was no change (evolution means to change through
growth; better is value judgement).
1. So, when this virus loses the arm and multiplies . . . It's not the genetic code of the creator that is passed on to the multitudes. It's the
new imperfect code? Does the creator re-write this code or is it simply the duplication of the imperfect DNA? I thought creationism says that we
were all made in our perfect forms (panda as pandas, virus as virus). If that's true, should each new virus be in the written in the creator's
orignal code? I don't see how this points to a creator? How is this different than evolution? The virus changed (evolved) to take up a more
advantagous position, within it's environment.
2. Actually, it's much further back than 1500 years. Some claim, through mitochondrial DNA, that we can trace back to a few thousand ancestors at
70000 yrs ago (Toba explosion).
Here
But, other geneticists say there is no evidence to support the claim that we can track back to any common ancestry.
Here
As for the gene explanation, still sounds like my understanding of evolutiion . . . What has the creator done to effect this outcome?
3. So how does this account for how we can manipulate breeds through the this method? Pandas can't mate with Apes. Oak trees don't mix with Pine
trees. Why has the creator made it so flowering plants can cross-pollinate? Seeds ensure cross-pollination? Seems a bit simplistic and doesn't
really explain the process. Is this natural occurance a perversion of creation?
4. So the fact the 99% of every species to ever populate the earth are now extinct explains "flawed" (transitional) fossils? How does this
fatalistic view explain fossils like Archeopterix? How does creationism account for for the morphology between different taxa? Was the creator just
randomly combining codes from different taxa like a chef would in the kitchen . . . just to see what would happen? And again, coupled with a the
rarity of fossils, how does extinction explain changes in the fossil record?
5. If prediction wasn't always occuring how did we master animal husbandry? How have people become quite adept at getting what they want? It can
be observed every day. If you want cows that produce a lot of milk, you breed them with other cows that produce a lot of milk. Over a couple
generations, all your cows are producing a lot of milk. Sure there will be exceptions, but you can not breed them and will eventually be left with a
population of cows who only produce a lot of milk. Humans have been perfecting this for about 7000 years or so. The creationist claim is that it has
been based on hope? That we've just been lucky? I certainly don't see how this claim is testable at all.
To be honest they all sound like common sense evolution . . . if not truncated. How does any of this support the creationist hypothesis that life was
created in it's perfect form? How does this support the ID hypothesis that an intelligent agent designed us to a specific form? How does any of
this differ from evolution?
