I believe that I am doing that even as I type. I am asking for input from others.
If you are telling me to “leave the issue alone”… that’s a hoot… I’m going to follow the instructions of an atheist on what topics I should leave alone? Why don’t we just leave the whole Bible alone, yes?
There are parallels between how crime scientists use genetics and how other scientists use genetics. If we can show that the applications in crime science are intelligible, useful and credible… then it becomes a benchmark for explaining what seems “impossible to explain” to a certain breed of Creationist.
I won’t dare you to say what I am discussing is “wrong-minded” … because no power on Earth could then keep you from saying that it is wrong-minded.
But maybe you can’t come up with anything better to say ?
You know, you and I discussed this exact same exhibit in December of 2018.
You had posted it in the 20th post of topic 3606 (alternatives to modern evolutionary theory).
I used the same exhibit in post #417 of the thread:
My point was that it literally shows how animals of all kinds share lots of genetic information. But my point was also that we can follow that pattern of shared genetic information to demonstrate common descent… and how some traits prove that a traits tend to get shared if they are on the same part of a chromosome.
The pattern is real and traceable… and it supports Evolutionary theory, not special creation. Are you going to say that when God uses special creation, he makes sure to aggregate the shared traits as though they are on the same parts of the chromosomes?
Why is it that you keep bringing up old exhibits to attempt to prove something the exhibits actually disprove ??
Is it because you don’t understand the logic of Evolution? If that were true, that would certainly explain why we keep discussing the same things over and over again.
There are a few key points… I’m sure some experts would name a few things differently. But here’s what I would tell my son:
Any change in a population’s allele percentages, for any reason, up-down-or-sideways, is Evolution.
Free exchange of genetics within a given population supports the “stability” or “continuity” of genetic information replicated and delivered to the next generation of the population.
The less exchange of genetic information between any two sub-groups of a population (frequently due to geological separation, but also due to something as simple as a different mating song or element in appearance), the more likely those
two sub-groups will eventually become reproductively incompatible.
Once 2 or more groups (coming out of a shared ancestral population) become reproductively incompatible, each group responds uniquely to environmental factors because any mutations or genetic drift that is experienced by one group will not be shared by the other.
Over time, an accumulation of minor changes can take on the appearance of dramatically different lifestyles and phenotypes to support these lifestyles…
Best Case?: When one population of marsupials migrated into Australia before it detached from the rest of the continents… a single lifestyle was able to quickly diverge to capitalize on the empty ecological niches they discovered. Relatively quickly, a single population of marsupials was able to develop three different body styles to go with three different types of lifestyles:
Omnivorous Bandycoots;
Carnivorous predators (like the Tasmanian Devil);
Herbivore moles.
Descendants of a common ancestral population, that looked and lived separately, eventually differed enough (once genetic exchange through reproductive incompatibility was achieved) that despite being closely related, they now look and live differently.
Why should me being an atheist matter? You should consider following the instructions of an evolutionary biologist, particularly a phylogeneticist, though.
Some, but not the ones you have been claiming.
You should know that Bill doesn’t really pay attention, and even on those rare occasions when he does, he forgets everything immediately.
Are marsupial moles actually herbivorous? If so, they should be called marsupial gophers.
I don’t think this scenario is correct, and you may be misreading your source. It’s close enough to correct to make your point, though.