Seems I've been underestimating how seriously the evolutionists take the facts of variation within a species to be evolution itself.  I guess I knew it but it's been so clearly shown to be false in my own mind I forget that's what others think.  

So I guess the case has to be made more emphatically and clearly that the genome defines the rules for variation within a species and only that species it belongs to.  

tHE lIST OF eVIDENCES aGAINST eVOLUTION cONTINUED

i FORGOT TO INCLUDE ON THAT LIST THE RATE OF EROTSION OF ROCKS SUCH AS THE BUTTES OF THE mONUMENT vALLEY ND THE WALLS OF THE gRAND cANYON AND OTHER INTERESTING FORMATIONS OF THE sOUTHWEST.  iF THEY ARE DATESD TO TENDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OR A MILLION OR MORE THAE AMOUNT OF EROSION SEEN COLLECTED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANY OF THESE FORMATIONS IS WAY TOO LITTLE.  tHIS IS JUST A GUESS AND IT SENEED S TO BE TESTED.  iT PROBABLY HAS BEEN BUT i DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIND THE INTERMTIATION.  THAT IS, THE RATE OF EROSION IS PROBABLY KNOWN FOR SOME OF THEM AND THEY'VE BEEN ASSIGNED A STARTING DATE S WELL.  

tHE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT WE SEE ARE SPECIFIC kINDS AS hAM PRESENTS THEM, i THINK NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS A PROBLEM OF HOW VARIATION OR EVOLUTION COULD OCCUR OUTSIDE THE GENOME OF A GIVEN kIND OR sPECIES.  aLL THE VARIATION WE SEE, THAT EVOLUTION HAS COOPTED QUITE RONGLY, OCCURS ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN OF THE GENOME, EACH GENE BEING REPRESENTED BY TWO DIFFERENT ALLELES WHICH PRODUCE DIFFERENT RESULTS IN THE CREATURE.  THIS IS BSICALLY THE GENETIC BASIS FOR mENDELIAN VARIATION, ONE ALLELE PRODUCING ONE COLOR OF FLOWER AND THE OTHER A DIFFERENT COLOR FOR INSTANCE.  yOU CAN HAVE HOMOZYGOUS RECESSIVE OR HOMOSZYGOUS DOMINANT OR HETEROZYGOUS VERSIONS OF ANY GIVEN GENE AND IN COMBINATION WITH ALL THE OTHER GENETIC VARIATIONS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIETY IS PRODUCED JUST WITHIN A GIVEN sPECIES OR kIND.  

THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION.  aND WHAT THE EVOLUTIONISTS NEED TO BE CHALLENEGED TO DO IS TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN SHOW HOW ANY KIND OF VARIATION CAN OCCUR WITHOUT BEING LIMITED BY THE DESIGN OF THE GENOME, OR HOW THE GENOME ITSELF CAN BE CHANGED.  THIS THEY'VE NEVER DONE AND i DON'T THINK IT CAN BE DONE.  i THINK ALL VARIATION IS DTERMIEND BYT HE DEISGN OF THE GENOME.

EYOND THAT i'VE ARGUED THAT THE PROCESSES OF EVOLUTION OR VARIATION INVOLVE THE REDUCTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY WHICH WORKS AGAINST THE WHOLE IDDEA OF EVOLUTION FROM SPECIES TO SPECIES.  aS YOU GET A MORE AND MORE REFINED BREED OF DOG OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL YOU ARE LOSING THE ALLALES FOR TRAITS THAT DON'T BELONG TO THIS BREED AND THAT IS THE ONLY DIFRECTION POSSIBLY AS NEW PHENOTYPES ARE DEVELOPED.  tHIS IS A FORMULA THAT WORKS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

AI'4 H44N FOMINY 6O 6HINK 6HW6 HORY PLWN IE W HIY TWF6O5 IN IR4N6ITYINY H4 AEP4FI4E O5 AKINR 6O EHO3 6HW6 I6 54MWINE 6HW6 AKINR WNR RO4EN'6 GW5Y.  AI6 MWY GW5Y ELIYH6LY HU6 TO5 6H4 MOE6 PW56 NO, W FHIHUWHUW IE H4 EWM4 WE W AY54W6 ARWN4 O5 W 3OLT 3H4N YOU FOMPW54 6H4I5 HORY PLWN4E.  AWNR 6H4I5 H4HWGIOTE TO5 6HW6 MW6645.  AEWM4 3I6H FW6E WLL OT 6H4M EHW5INY W HORY PLWN 6HW6 IE 54FOYNISWHL4 IN 6H4 EK4L4F6ON OT 4G45Y KINR OT FW6.  AAAAAAAA  AWNR HIRE.  AWNR 

2h3When you compare the body plan or skelecton of an ape with a human being you have to see that the claimed similarity is really not there.  The proportions are completelyh different.

Apparently the great variation that occurs within a given genome does not occur in the part that determines the body plan.   

There's more to say about all that but I have to mention that I'm still sort of shocked and amused by Bil l Nye's giving me an argument against evolution when he so emphaticlaly said that you absoluteoyly camnot find a fossil from a lower layer showing up in higher layers and that's supposed to be an argument aginst the Flood.  I'd been trying to get a sense for some time of how many of the fossils get carried over into later time periods, and it was a big surprise for him to say absolutely none.  He says it twice too, in his opening statmeent and again in his half hour talk.  this is deadly for evolution since it completley falsifies the fossil record.  If those were really time periods then they should show an accumulation of living things from earlier times as well as the new evolvedld creatures, but apaprently that is not the case.  A According to bill Nye.

cONTINUING bILL nYE AND kEN hAM DEBATE

fINALLY HEARD THE DATE OF THIS EVENT:  2014, TEN YEARS AGO.

iNTERESTING.  nYE THINKS IF THE fLOOD WERE TRUE THAT THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF GREAT TUMULT IN THE STRATA RATHER THAN THE PLACID FLAT ROCKS THAT ACTUALLY EXIST AND CAN BE SEEN EXPOSED IN THE WALLS OF THE gRAND cANYON.   tHIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT i'VE BEEN MAKING AGAINST EVOLUTION, THAT IF THESE LAYERS ACTUALLY PERSISTED ON THE EARTH FOR THE MILLIONS OF YEARS ASCRIBED TO THEM THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF ALL SORTS OF DISTURBANCES SUCH AS EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANOES WITHIN THEM SINCE THIS IS A VERY ACTIVE PLANET, AND THERE AREN'T ANY.  nO, WE SEE THESE PLACID FLAT FROCKS THAT EXTEND FOR THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

hE POINTS TO THE VERY FEW PLACES WHERE IT SEEMS THAT A RIVER BED CUTS THROUGH A LAYER AND THAT SORT OF THING BUT THE EXAMPLES ARE RIDICULOUSLY FEW AND THE BETTER EXPLANATION THAN THE EVOLUTIONIST EXPLANATION IS THAT THE THING THAT LOOKS LIKE A RIVERBED WAS WATER ....  CASUSED BY WATER RUNNING BETWEEN THE LAYERS AFTER THEY WERE LAID DOWN.   eSPECIALLY IN LIMESTONE WATER BETWEEN THE LAYERS COULD MAKE CUTS AND HOLES IN THE ROCK.

i WOULD SUPPOSE THAT MANY OF THE LAYERS WER LAID DOWN BY HUGE WAVS FLOWING OVER THE LAND, THOUGH IT'S ALSO A POSSIBILITY THAT THERY WERE PRECIDIPATED OUT DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE fLOOD WHEN THE WATER WAS FAIRLY STILL.   tHESE ARE SPECULATION FOR A FUTURE TIME i THINK, BUT MEANWHILE THE LACK OF ACTIVITY WITHIN THE LAYERS IS FAR MORE OF A PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BASED ON AN OLD EARTH THAN IT IS FOR THE fLOOD.

THERE IS PLENTY OF TUMULT AND TURMOIL AFTER ALL THE STRATA WERE IN PLACE, WHICH CAN BE SEEN ON THE CROSS SECTION OF THE gRAND sTAIRCASE TO gRAND cANYON AREA i'VE OFTEN MENTIONED.  THAT'S WHEN THE ONLY VOLCANO TO BE SEEN ON THAT DIAGRAM IS SEEN TO HAVE OCCURRED AFTER WARD AS IT PENETRATES FROM THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE STRATA TO THE VETY TOP IN ONE SMOOTH LINE OF MAGMA.  aND THE ENTIRE STACK OF LAYERS IS SHOWN TO HVE BEEN DEFORMED AS A UNIT, SLIGHTLY RAISED UP AND SLOPONG DOWNWARD, THE MOUNDED UP OVER THE UNCONFORMITY AST THE BASED E OF THE GRAND CANYON.  tHE UPPER PART OF THE CROSS SECTION SHOWS ALL THE TUMULT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM THE RECEDING WATERS OF THE fLOOD AS IT CUT THE CLIFFS THAT MAKE THE STEPS OF THEgRAND sTAIRCASE AND SWEPT AWAY MOST OF THE LAYERS ABOVE THE pERMIAN IN THE gRAND cANYON AREA, AS WELL AS NO DOUBT CUTTING THE CANYON ITSELF , AGAIN AFTER ALL THE LAYERS HAD BEEN LAID DOWN.   aS i'VE ARGUED IN ANOTHER RECENT POST HERE.

nYE RAISES QUESTIONS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE fLOOD BUT IT JUST MEANS WE DON'T HVE ANSWERS FOR THEM YET.  tHE MAIN ANSWER IS THAT WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE NOBODY WAS THERE AND THINGS WERE VERY DIFFERENT BEFORE THE fLOOD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT.  pLANTS AND ANIMS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HARDIER THEN, TOUGHTER LAND LIVED LONGER, COULD WITHSTAND THIGNS NO DOUBT THAT THEIR DESCENDANTS TODAY COULDN'T WITHSTAND SO WELL.  aLL THIS IS AGAIN FOR FUTTRUR E STUDY, BUT MEANWHILE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAYERS WERE NOT DISTURBED IN THEIR LAYING DOWN AND WERE VIOLENTLY DISTURBED AS A BLOCK AFTERWARD.  wHICH IS SUPPORT FOR A YOUNG EARTH AND AGAINST AN OLD EARTH.