The Creation Model explains the facts GENETICALLY

RAZD

Do you want to see how large morphological changes occur and the evidence for them then you are asking for evidence of how the ToE explains changes observed in the fossil record and ends up with the diversity of morphological differences we see in the world today.

Of course, first you are going to need to define what you mean by "large morphological changes" as this is not a quantified description.

Do you think that the morphological differences between a house cat and a red fox are "large morphological changes"? Do you think they are differentiated by just a little or by lots of macroevolution?

Do you think a webbed foot is a "large morphological change" when the parents don't have webbed feet?

You might want to read through Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? or MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and see if you can formulate your question clearly.

... The only defence offered for that is, "enough time will do it". The rest is arguing about speciation, which many believe is just variation or micro-evolution. The only difference is evolutionary scientists decided it wasn't.

Well can you deny that many generations add more evolution than single generations?

Generations alone don't do it, you need population splits, and you get "more evolution" only up to the point that you run out of alleles for any given evolving trait, generally many traits by the time "speciation" is reached. This is because the processes of evolution that lead to speciation also lead to reduced genetic diversity.

Here's Pelycodus again:

How many generations do you think are shown there?

One. One generation, many cousins. Many variations / cousins that lived at the same time and all died in the one same Flood.

Speciation can be taken as the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution, and this would be consistent with microevolution occurring within breeding populations. Generally, however, scientists don't worry so much about macro and micro, and prefer to talk about evolution and the resulting cladistic patterns.

What happens with speciation events is a division of the breeding population into two or more populations, each then free to evolve independently by microevolution within their respective breeding populations.

The ability of each population to evolve independently will continue as long as there is sufficient allelic variability for it. Back at that Creation there would have been much more than there is now so that such splits wouldn't lead to genetic reduction or depletion, even severe bottleneck splits, because all that now-dead junk DNA was functioning DNA back then. But at least since the Flood, and in more recent time, population splits may reduce genetic diversity quite a bit in a given species. The idea that microevolution just freely proceeds after such splits is the typical evolutionist assumption that doesn't recognize that these processes bring about reduced genetic diversity, which after many population divisions prevents further phenotypic changes from occurring at all. This is the basic folly of evolutionist assumption of open-ended evolution.

Creationist: No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. No one is interested in the boundries and limitations of mutational changes, or that just about all the changes involve loss of information. Information loss, cannot build anything new. Just faith that enough time can do the job.

Here the creationist is saying what I'm saying. Loss of information is really the same thing as reduced genetic diversity. Some alleles get left behind as new phenotypes emerge on the basis of the remaining ones. That's loss of information, although I think it's clearer to call it reduced genetic diversity.

RAZD: Perhaps that's because we've seen the evidence for 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 and know that your assertions are absolutely false.

This is just a bald assertion, where's the evidence he claims to have seen? He's not going to give any, but he'll ask the creationist to produce evidence instead.

RAZD: Of course you could try to prove me wrong by actually providing evidence of this mythic mutational barrier. See "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -- an 8 year old thread that asks for this mechanism, but which no creationist nor idologist has provided. Be the first

. And here's RAZD's challenge from that thread:

The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?

Again, it's the fact that the processes of evolution can't simply keep on going because they eventually run out of alleles for genes. Evolution defeats evolution.

The creationist says: Anyone could look at old fossils and make relational assumptions. Especially if they are commonly designed.

RAZD: And those assumptions can be tested by applying the methodology of cladistics, and by having separate groups make simultaneous analysis and by comparing it with similar analysis using DNA.

Curiously this has been done, extensively. Guess what? They confirm each other. Can you tell me why the results are the same if the process is subjective

There is some sort of illusion involved in this whereby you are getting nothing more than a tautological echo of sorts. The method IS subjective. You are looking at traits and subjectively deciding how to group creatures according to their trait similarities and differences. As the creationist says, design similarity is a sufficient explanation for many similarities and your groupings can't show that it isn't simply design similarity you are grouping together. Studying DNA seems like it ought to produce an independent standard of some sort but in fact there is also a similarity of DNA design that reflects the similarity of phenotypic design and there is no way in any of this to establish actual descent from one to another.

The same is true of the supposed terrific evidence of "nested hierarchies" which gets discussed farther down the page. All this involves a subjective classification of external TRAITS, and descent is simply INFERRED, not proven.

Similar situation with RAZD's questioning the creationist about what constitutes a "large morphological change" as a definition of macro versus microevolution. The problem is that when you are dealing with morphology, just as with the nested hierarchies and the clades, it's all subjective judgment. And that includes the similarities that also are reflected in the DNA (there's bound to be a predictable correspondence between the DNA and the phenotype).

Do you want to see how large morphological changes occur and the evidence for them then you are asking for evidence of how the ToE explains changes observed in the fossil record and ends up with the diversity of morphological differences we see in the world today.

Of course, first you are going to need to define what you mean by "large morphological changes" as this is not a quantified description.

Do you think that the morphological differences between a house cat and a red fox are "large morphological changes"? Do you think they are differentiated by just a little or by lots of macroevolution?

Do you think a webbed foot is a "large morphological change" when the parents don't have webbed feet?

As long as this is all subjectively determined a creationist can say the difference between a fox and a house cat IS large enough to constitute a macro level of difference, and the evolutionist can say it isn't. But what does the DNA of the two creatures look like is the real question.

These things have to be determined at the genetic level. He asks if webbed feet from a nonwebbedfooted parent is a macro level difference or not, asking as usual for a subjective judgment of an observable trait. Seems to me it depends on whether there is the GENETIC possibility of webbedfootedness in the genome. Is there a gene for webbedness that exists in the genome or not? Is there more than one gene for the trait that could produce webbedness under certain conditions or combinations? Or allelic alternatives that could produce it? If there is then webbedness has to be one built-in variable for the particular species and is not a "large morphological change" or a macro level change. If not, then you aren't going to get webbedness in that species at all ever (except possibly as a mutation?) because it IS a macro level change that can't occur.