Kent Hovind vs. a Molecular Biologist (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 10, 2011, 16:14 (4883 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Let's leave the concept of perfection out of it then and work on what we 'know'.
> 
> In one of your earlier post you mentioned bacterial life being about 1Bn years old, which I do not disagree with. -3.6Bn actually. -> We also know that there was a vast explosion of new life forms all at or around the same period.(Much faster than mainstream evolutionary theory can account for.) -There's some debate about that--> see my posts discussing David's book. I think that what you're saying is mainstream doesn't fit with what I learned as mainstream theory. I didn't learn a strict gradualistic theory at all, which evidence refutes. -> We also know that there has not been such an expansion of new life since that point, and in fact we have lost over a third of all pre-existing phyla. -I think that number is higher... if I remember right we have 35 now, and there were some 200 at the Cambrian. -> We also know that mutations are negative.-No... they're split roughly into thirds. Harmful, Neutral, Positive. 2/3 of all mutations are not lethal. -> We also know that there is no proven case of speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html speaks of several.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-ru-2010-09-02 One under progress right now. -> We also know that there genetic differences between species either prevent reproduction, produce sterile offspring, or produce offspring that while perhaps fertile, are not genetically compatible with existing mates, thus preventing the expansion of the lineage. 
> 
This is, in fact the definition of speciation.-> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> That primitive species of the taxonomic phyla of Homo are ancestors of modern Humans. 
> 
> That any living creature, genetically, is better adapted to environment than their originating ancestor. 
> 
> That the formation of complex organisms and complex structures could occur in such a manner as to facilitate the formation of 50+ different phyla in much less time than biologically feasible. 
> -Again, I'm not sure this is true, but lets play...-> That technological superiority equals evolutionary advancement. 
> 
> 
> Clarifications Required:
> 
> Do minor genetic differences, such as coloration, size, hair type, personality traits, that do not preclude successful reproduction, constitute speciation, or like humans, do we consider those with similar variations as the same species instead of cousins in the same phyla?
> -As far as I'm aware, speciation is defined as that point from which descendants can no longer reproduce (either through behavioral changes or genetics) with its parent group. THIS kind of speciation is well documented. (See link above.)-> What criteria are being applied to qualify species with adaptations/genetic changes as higher up the evolutionary chain, other than chronology?
As far as I'm aware, the only division in regards to speciation is what I discussed before.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"