Listening to some videos about various genetic and geological topics related the creation evolution debate, keep being amazed at the certainlyw they bring to explanations that strike me as ell, not just iffy but impossible. These are educated professionsals so therefore I must be the wrong one, of course. How cdare I think such thoughts. And such nice people too, Nice intelligent people, so sincere, so convinced of their knowledge. It tkaes thousands of years to deposit the sediment in one of those sedimentary layers says he. That's all, just that statement. But how could it happen at all ever?
And happen at intevals in which each deposit gets enshrined as a layer between other sediments of different kinds, each horizontal, flat stiraight and many of them extending in all directions covering many thousands of square miles, whole continents or even more than that. The mere physical facts defy anyh explanation that assumes normal processes. Perhaps somewhere someone has written it all out to perfection so that even I would have to agree that after all it is possible, but I haven't yet run across even a hint of such a document. I can sort of place some layers art the borttom of the ocean but even there they wouldn't be so perfectly horizontal and stariaght and flat. the sea floor isn't tabletop flat. On land it culdn't be at the survfaace in any time period because nothing could have lived on such a surface, so I would have to imagine it buried beneath the surface somewhow , that surface then somehow disappearing when the next layer formes on top of it to continue the composition of gethe geollgical column.
Then ave asimilar problem with the genetic stuff. How is it they can just ignore the obvious built in limitation of the genome of a given species as a barrier to any variation that could produce something other than what that genome codes for, which is the characteristics of that species and nothing else, including of course different alleles for the genes so that you get a lot of variation in traits, but nothing that could ever produce a tdifferent trait or a different anything than whatever that species is composed of. Dawkins, Coyne, all fo the m just seem to skimright over what seems to me to be this obvious fact: there is simply no way to get from one species to another by any of the normal processes of genetics. Including mutation.
Yeah I know I keep repeating myself, but really, evolution is such obvious foolishness I'm really amazed that nobody esees it. And how could I, or any creationist be so special as to see something all those brilliant scientists can't see?
Well, here I am again bleating into dead cyberspeace. Sign.
* * * * *
Yes I really do think my simple observtions spell death to evolution, conceited idiot that I am I guess. And what I rwould really like to find is someone who believes in evolution but is open and honest enough to really try to think through my arguments so that I can get a god assessment of them from somebody outside my own scircle. I need to know if I'm being clear, creting a shaprrp enough picture to be understood, especially since I may be using termonology in a personal or idiosyncratic way.
Finding anyone who knows enough, even just the rudimentary amount necessary can be too much for people who haven't tried to follow the creation evolution debates, anyway that'as hard for starters. then someone who doesn't know too much so that they just dismiss me out of hand and don't take the time to try to think it through. As I've been presenting my arguments over this last month here they are pretty simpliefied and of course I'm not getting into a lot of the examples I bring up elsewhere, but I think there should be enough to make the basic argument clear.
Mostly itl's just observations. If you look on that cross section of the Grand Staircase to Grand Canyon area you have to see that the strata are presented as a block of undisturbed layers extending hundreds of miles. There isn't even a hint of anykind of disturbance within a layer, and if you look at the real layers say in the walls of teh Grand Canyon you see that they are all composed of one kind of sediment, at least most of them are although there are some conglomerate layers. But all limestone? Al stsandstone? Just look at it, think about it, how do you explain it, how do yougyou get a time period of tends of millions of years aout of one of those layers? What are you imagining going on on the usurface of the earth during that period. Where was this sedimentary layer during lall that time? how on earth could it have been laid down so flatly horizontal under normal conditions, whether on the surface or underground or at the bottom of the ocea? How?
And I keep coming back to Coyne's strange remark that the difference between the wolrf and the chihuahua is evidence of ev.lolution in itself, but that's eally very very odd. He understands the gemonme, surely. He understands that variation is built into the way DNA operates, that just having two alleles or two versions of a gene is enough to bring about a great deal of variation in a trait, and most traits are coded for by many genes, not juust one. There's really very little difference between the worlf and the chihuahua when you think about the particulars. Difference in size, and that's a normal variation within a genome; difference in hair or fur color and texture, definitely built inoto the dog genome; Difference in ear shape, nose length etc. It's all there in the genome and if that is the case we are not talking about evolution abt all but only abourt t normal built in species variations. SURELY he knows that.
So you need some other way to get to a different species. You need a new trait, not just variations on the traits already laid out in the genome of the species. How do you get a new trait? I don't think you can and I have never seen anyone try to make a case for it either.
And again, when you have a small number of individuals inbreeding among themselves you are going to get dramatic new phenotypes or observatibe characteristics, but at the same time you are losing genetic variability. You have too. When you are breeding a great Dane you have to lose all the traits of a chihuahua, you need genes for large size etc etc etc. Whenever you select a trait you eliminate all the other possibilities, and that is a reduction in genetic variability that may rapidly end up with a great deal of homozygosity for all the main traits of your chosen breed, or in the wild whatever happens to be randomly selected, by geographic isolation. Losing genetic variability is not the direction you would expect to bwe going if you are thinking of this as the path of evoution from one species to another. by the time you get to your new breed or highly refined race in the wild you have a lot less ability to vary left in the genome. You can't get evolution from that situation.
Again I know I keep repeating myself. But good grief, all this proves evolution is just plain impossible.
Or show me where I'm wrong. Please.
