What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[David1701]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s hardly a fair criticism when you don’t know what my claim is. From my perspective, there are several theological first order points. What you have listed are second or third order. First order points include:

1. God is creator of the universe and all things in it.

2. God created humans special and capable of communion with Him.

3. Humans rebelled and chose their own way rather than obedience to God.

4. The choice of disobedience broke the relationship between humans and God.

5. God foretold of an eventual way for that relationship to be restored.

This is far too vague to be of much use.

[David1701]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is a report regarding a couple of computer programs that Dr. Sanford believes show that genetic entropy proves that large-scale evolution is not possible. Computer programs are not evidence. What evidence do you have that supports the hypothesis of genetic entropy?

Mutations are copying errors.  Each generation produces more and more of them and natural selection only slows down the process.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Mutations are copying errors.  Each generation produces more and more of them and natural selection only slows down the process.

That's not evidence, David. You know this. The hypothesis that genomes are slowly eroding and leading to extinction is not supported by evidence.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

This is far too vague to be of much use.

Central tenets of theology are too vague? Really?

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That's not evidence, David. You know this. The hypothesis that genomes are slowly eroding and leading to extinction is not supported by evidence.

Oh come on!  Evolutionists make mutations one of their pillars.  Mutations are almost all harmful (at best neutral), since they are damage to the genetic makeup of the organism.  Each new generation introduces more and more harmful mutations.  Of course our genome is degrading!  There should really be no debate about it.  The only question is: how fast is it degrading?

It's true that natural selection mitigates this somewhat, but it cannot remove it.

By the way, the scientists investigating our genetic entropy, use mathematical models that are very optimistic.  The reality is probably far, far worse.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Central tenets of theology are too vague? Really?

Oh, the games people play...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIBlCac8_wk

You know what I'm talking about.

Edited September 23, 2022 by David1701

[one.opinion]

47 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Oh come on!  Evolutionists make mutations one of their pillars.

Yes, mutations are essential for evolution. That doesn’t mean the genetic entropy is a viable hypothesis.

48 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Mutations are almost all harmful (at best neutral)

This is not correct. A vast majority of mutations are neutral. A very small proportion of mutations impact phenotype. Those that affect phenotype more frequently have a negative influence on fitness than positive, but those mutations that reduce fitness are removed from gene pools by natural selection.

51 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Each new generation introduces more and more harmful mutations.

No, because natural selection works to remove those mutations that reduce fitness.

52 minutes ago, David1701 said:

It's true that natural selection mitigates this somewhat, but it cannot remove it.

This is speculation that contradicts evidence. If genetic entropy leads inevitably to extinction, then viruses and bacteria would have died out long ago. I’m the appropriate environments these can double in number in roughly 30 minutes.

54 minutes ago, David1701 said:

By the way, the scientists investigating our genetic entropy, use mathematical models that are very optimistic.  The reality is probably far, far worse.

The genetic entropy hypothesis needs more than Mendel’s Accountant to support it. It needs real evidence.

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You know what I'm talking about.

I know you are talking about the theological principles of primary import, I just don’t know why you consider those too vague. I think they are completely accurate. I suspect you are only claiming they are too vague rather than actually showing any errors because you know I have a point.

[Sparks]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to clean up any problems in your ideas, then all ideas are equally plausible.

That's what theological evolutionists do.  They need a miracle from God to keep that dumb religion of evolution alive. 

[The Barbarian]

If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle to clean up any problems in your ideas, then all ideas are equally plausible.

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's what theological evolutionists do. 

No, that's what you just did.   Would you like me to show you?

14 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They need a miracle from God to keep that dumb religion of evolution alive.

It's always funny that creationists, who claim to be religious,  always want to attack ideas by claiming they are religious.    Seems to reveal some deep self-conflict.

 

Edited September 23, 2022 by The Barbarian