So there is apparently no need to account for how “kinds” differentiated into different species (which is a model of semi-common descent) in “the creationist model”. That is why “the creationist model” is of no use in explaining or predicting anything.
It is easy to assume that mice and rats are different created kinds? You didn't think it was easy. You said the difference between the two was “micro” - do you now want to change your answer?
Again an attack on my faith. Would this august authority (who hopefully can count this time) put scare quotes around the Christianity of the Pope and every other Christian who accepts scientific theory?
“Any genetic changes that do occur (and there can be significant changes, esp. immediate post Fall and post Flood) are degenerative in their nature and not useful for common descent, but certainly capable of introducing variation and diversity among the created kinds.”
So NOW we are back to discussing genetic changes - something that the “creationist model” a few paragraphs before never ever had to account for - and he admits EXACTLY to my initial premise - that there can be SIGNIFICANT CHANGES “immediate post...Flood” - apparently at THOUSANDS of times the rate proposed by evolutionary biology - oh but you cannot call it evolution or (semi) common descent! And you have to call it “micro”!
Your supposedly credentialed creationist never explained what “micro” or “macro” was - or how the difference between a mouse and a rat would be “micro” as you asserted and be possible within a thousand years- while one tenth the difference can only be called “macro” and would be impossible after seven million years.
allmendream, you’ve become a caricature.
This will be the last post regarding this. I’ve had two PhD level scientists respond to you but you apparently think you know more than they do.
This is from the FIRST PhD in response to these things that you said:
***”A shorter generation time does not explain how ten times the difference can supposedly accumulate in a thousand years and be characterized as a “micro” change - while one tenth the difference is a “macro” change and would supposedly be impossible even after seven million years.
The different “molecular clocks” of rodents and primates doesn’t account for this either.
Two individual animals - unless magical - can only have a maximum genetic diversity of FOUR - IF each individual is a total hetero-zygote at each genetic loci and the mated pair don’t have any variations at all in common. Four.
Mice and rats are extremely well adapted - what would you expect them to change into within our lifetime? If you have come to expect the differentiation of the rodent “kind” into mice and rats within a thousand year span you will be disappointed. It took many millions of years to accumulate that much difference in genetic DNA - ten times the difference as between humans and chimpanzees.”***
***”Can you define “macro” or “micro” for me such that it would be explainable?
Nothing your guy said addressed the issue how one change that was ten times as much could be micro - and could happen in a thousand years; while the other change that is ten times less can only be called macro and is supposedly impossible even after seven million years.
Your supposed geneticist point #4 is contrary to a basic knowledge of genetics. FOUR variations at any given genetic loci.”***
Here is his response:
He did not listen to anything I said. His reply makes the same assumptions as his original and does not take into consideration any of my points. He also makes ridiculous statements like, “Mice and rats are extremely well adapted - what would you expect them to change into within our lifetime?” Who said anything about short-term changes?
1) Again, who said mice and rats are the same original created kind?
2) The differences in molecular clocks certainly weighs on the argument. A female Mus musculus, can have up to 10 litters per year. The average historical human generation time is 30 years. Their generation time is 1/300 that of man! Also, since the population size is more or less constant, the entire population turns over up to ten times a year, on average. After all that, there is ONLY 10-times the difference between rats and mice as between chimp and man? This is a surprise even under evolutionary assumptions.
3) He has not characterized the genetic differences between rats and mice. He is probably reiterating a fact he learned, but cannot decipher the details behind the fact for lack of experience in the field. Not trying to insult the guy, but facts are sometimes worthless without background understanding. In fact, there is more diversity within the common house mouse than within all of humanity put together, and much of the mouse diversity deals with karyotype variation (chromosomal inversions, fusions, and breakages). Etc. Etc.
3) microevolution vs. macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.
4) We do not need four alleles per variable locus to explain current human genetic diversity. In fact, all we need is two, and these would fit neatly into Adam: http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos
Schaef21:I suggest that you actually read what he says and take the time to dig into it.
The last one I sent you got a response in about 5 minutes. There’s no way you could have even digested it.
These answers are not from Joe Schmo they are from professional scientists working in the field who have attained PhD status.