The Privileged Planet

[Right Divider]

Because you can't. So it's been made quite clear that you make claims like "no additional genetic information", even though you have no idea if it's at all true.

Then post it.

Any way that I can think of to measure "genetic information" (strings of nucleotides, functional sequences), your argument is trivially easy to falsify. We see new genetic sequences generated by mutation all the time.

Um.......that's just HILARIOUS. Man creationists are entertaining! :rotfl:

Ah, so your point here is that we should keep in mind that just because you say something, that doesn't mean you know anything about it at all. Good to know. :up:

Like I said, if we're talking strings of nucleotides and/or functional sequences, it's an easy question to answer. You can even see it for yourself via a simple experiment.

Dude, if YOU want to believe that the vastly DAMAGING nature of mutations leads from molecules to man, go ahead. But that ain't science and it goes against easily demonstrable and reproducible facts.

Either that or you're so much smarter than every other person on the planet and you should be helping get this secret information that you have out to the world.

“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]​

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]​

“As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding.” [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), “The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]​

 

[Jose Fly]

Dude, if YOU want to believe that the vastly DAMAGING nature of mutations leads from molecules to man, go ahead.

If mutations only do damage, how did organisms like the malaria parasite acquire the biochemical pathways and physical structures necessary to infect humans? How did the Clostridium species acquire the biochemical pathway necessary to produce an incredibly poisonous toxin?

If evolution can't do it, what did? Did God intentionally "design" those things?

But that ain't science and it goes against easily demonstrable and reproducible facts.

Well, let's keep in mind that's coming from a person who just admitted he has no idea what he's talking about.

Either that or you're so much smarter than every other person on the planet and you should be helping get this secret information that you have out to the world.

“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]​

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]​

“As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding.” [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), “The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion.” Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]​

Ah, so 35+ year old, two or three sentence quotes, from a time before genetic sequencing was commonplace, are supposed to do what, exactly?

And did you actually read that material, or did you just copy those quotes from a creationist source? I will say they are entertaining though. For example, Pierre-Paul Grasse was also a proponent of Lamarckism, and was 82 when he wrote that. Arthur Koestler was almost as old, and wasn't even a scientist, and Wicken was a chemist, not a biologist.

Nice try (not really). :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

If mutations only do damage, how did organisms like the malaria parasite acquire the biochemical pathways and physical structures necessary to infect humans? How did the Clostridium species acquire the biochemical pathway necessary to produce an incredibly poisonous toxin?

If evolution can't do it, what did? Did God intentionally "design" those things?

Variation within a kind .... very fascinating.

That's far cry from what is necessary to change a mouse into a man.

Ah, so 35+ year old, two or three sentence quotes, from a time before genetic sequencing was commonplace, are supposed to do what, exactly?

So mutations were in, then out, and the back in again. Nice evolution of the theory I must say.

IAnd did you actually read that material, or did you just copy those quotes from a creationist source? I will say they are entertaining though. For example, Pierre-Paul Grasse was also a proponent of Lamarckism, and was 82 when he wrote that. Arthur Koestler was almost as old, and wasn't even a scientist, and Wicken was a chemist, not a biologist.

Nice try (not really). :chuckle:

And Gould was a saltationist, since his immense studies proved to him that gradualism does not work (you know, something Darwin got wrong).

Mutations are VASTLY DAMAGING and yet you can't give up on them because you have nothing else.

 

[Jose Fly]

Variation within a kind .... very fascinating.

That's far cry from what is necessary to change a mouse into a man.

That doesn't answer the question though. The malaria parasite, Clostridium, variola, and the other nasty things that infect and kill millions of people all require specific genetic sequences that code for the structures and biochemical pathways that allow them to do the terrible things they do.

If evolution can't produce those genetic sequences, what did?

So mutations were in, then out, and the back in again. Nice evolution of the theory I must say.

No, you just quoted one old Lamarckist, a non-scientist, and a chemist.

And Gould was a saltationist, since his immense studies proved to him that gradualism does not work (you know, something Darwin got wrong).

Nope, not at all. You need to get your understanding of punctuated equilibria from actual scientists, not creationist websites.

Mutations are VASTLY DAMAGING and yet you can't give up on them because you have nothing else.

Again, coming from someone who admits he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[Right Divider]

That doesn't answer the question though. The malaria parasite, Clostridium, variola, and the other nasty things that infect and kill millions of people all require specific genetic sequences that code for the structures and biochemical pathways that allow them to do the terrible things they do.

If evolution can't produce those genetic sequences, what did?

Changes WITHIN the existing genetic structure of the animal. Is this hard for you to understand? I guess so.

No, you just quoted one old Lamarckist, a non-scientist, and a chemist.

There are plenty of prominent evolutions that admit that mutations are a no go. Not to mention that mutations always work on what already exists and are clearly not a nice forward moving driver.

Nope, not at all. You need to get your understanding of punctuated equilibria from actual scientists, not creationist websites.

I was using a word that I thought you would like to cut down. Well done. Point being is that SJG clearly saw that gradualism was a no go, but Darwin thought that it was THE go. WRONG Mr. Brilliant Darwin.

Again, coming from someone who admits he has no idea what he's talking about.

Thanks

 

[Jonahdog]

There are plenty of prominent evolutions that admit that mutations are a no go.

Exactly what does that mean?

 

[Right Divider]

Exactly what does that mean?

It means that they studied and came to the conclusion that mutations do not provide the needed changes to turn molecules into men.

 

[6days]

And... I have shown your assumption is false.

This is positively fascinating to watch someone act like this. It puts me in mind of a creationist I met back around 2000. When I offered to take him to a university and show him some transitional fossils, he told me "If I held a fossil in my hand that scripture says can't exist, then I would have to conclude that Satan was tricking my eyes and the fossil wasn't real."

Interesting! But nothing to do with the fact evolutionary beliefs contribute nothing to medicine or technology.

Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system.

Amazing. You've been shown the paper that describes how genetic sequences from diverse taxa were put into a model that is entirely based on evolutionary relationships, and the model predicted genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy...far superior to other methods...and all you can do is basically say "Nuh uh".

Nuh-uh!! *

The genetic function can be determined in most cases with a belief in common ancestor, AND /OR with a belief in a *common design and Designer. But the evidence better fits the common Designer model. If homologous genes are the result of evolution, then it would make sense they have similar function, but as you know, this is often not the case.

This problem for common ancestor beliefs is explained by G. de Beer in 'Homology: An Unsolved Problem' " Because homology implies *community of descent from...a common ancestor, it might be thought that genetics would provide the answer to the problem of homology. This is where the worst shock of all is encountered. ...Characters *controlled by identical genes are not necessarily homogous. ... (and) homogous structures need not be controlled by identical genes."

BTW.... *as the founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said [/b]" in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."[/b]

I suppose I can keep quoting scientists who say that common ancestry beliefs have never helped real science.

Funny how you think quotes trump actual science. *

Funny how you think your beliefs trump actual science.*

As the editor of the journal 'BioEssays' said.... 'evolution is a superfluous idea' (BioEsays 22)*

Or, we can look at statements from evolutionists who admit common ancestry beliefs have lead to increased racism.

I can find you plenty of quotes from creationists who cite the "curse of Ham" as justification for their racism. Therefore.....?

Sure...you can. (And we could discuss how *Christians such as Wilberforce fought to end racism and slavery). But we are discussing how evolutionism has not only at times hindered science, but harmed society.*

As the famous evutionist Gould said, racism existed before 1859 but increased by orders of magnitude after that.*

Then, we can examine the role common ancestry beliefs have played in genocides ....etc.

Really? You sure you want to bring up genocide? Have you read the OT?

I sure have, and that might make for an interesting *thread if God is justified in passing judgment and exterminating people as with the flood. But... it seems you did agree with me that one of the ills Darwinism has wrought in our world is genocides.*

IOW, you are basically "Some anonymous poster on a fundamentalist Christian internet forum says evolutionary biology is a religion, not science".

Correct.... I am some anonymous poster saying that a common ancestry belief system is religious in nature... a belief system which contributes nothing *towards medicine or technology; *and a belief system which has caused immeasurable and untold suffering in our world.*

 

[6days]

Geneticists all perform the same science no matter if Hindu, atheist or Biblical creationist.

So, given that you believe in starting with scripture then looking to see how the evidence fits that, you must think at least some of these geneticists are taking the wrong approach.

They all take the same basic approach....usually. But yes, sometimes geneticists have let their belief about the past cloud their conclusions. But science often proves those conclusions we're false. (Like with so called psuedogenes, junk DNA *and "useless" biological remnant organs)


*

 

[Stripe]

The fact remains that despite making arguments about increases, decreases, more, or less "genetic information", you can't provide a quantitative means of measuring "genetic information". Thus your quantitative claims about it are necessarily meaningless.

Nope. This is just you desperate to sabotage any discussion that might elucidate on an idea that is in opposition to your precious evolutionism. As I said: There are quantitative measures available, and even if there weren't, that would be no fatal end to the idea.

Learn to engage rationally. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Changes WITHIN the existing genetic structure of the animal.

So you believe God deliberately designed all the pathogens with the abilities to cause disease and suffering. That's pretty sick, don't you think?

There are plenty of prominent evolutions that admit that mutations are a no go. Not to mention that mutations always work on what already exists and are clearly not a nice forward moving driver.

Funny though how you could only muster three quotes, two of which came from people who don't work in biology, and all from the 1970's.

Point being is that SJG clearly saw that gradualism was a no go, but Darwin thought that it was THE go. WRONG Mr. Brilliant Darwin.

Except it turns out we have some very good examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record.

See, that's how science works....quotes are meaningless; data is what matters.

 

[Jose Fly]

Interesting! But nothing to do with the fact evolutionary beliefs contribute nothing to medicine or technology.

Like I said, I don't know if you're trying to goad me into calling you a name or something, but I'm perfectly content to watch you make a fool of yourself....all on your own.

The genetic function can be determined in most cases with a belief in common ancestor, AND /OR with a belief in a *common design and Designer. But the evidence better fits the common Designer model.

Really? You've seen how evolutionary common ancestry allows for the discernment of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy...

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

The very first two sentences in the abstract makes it absolutely clear what they did...

"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy."​

Where are the superior results from creationists?

This problem for common ancestor beliefs is explained by G. de Beer

Are you talking about Gavin de Beer, who was born in 1899 and died in 1972? If you guys are going to try and argue via quote, at least get something from the last 20 years or so. :chuckle:

BTW.... *as the founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said [/b]" in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."[/b]

Well, we know for a fact that isn't the case (see above). Like I told Right Divider, in science data always trumps quotes....always.

Funny how you think your beliefs trump actual science.*

Not sure what bizarro world you're living in, but if you haven't noticed, only one of us has been posting links and excerpts from actual scientific papers....and it ain't you.

Sure...you can. (And we could discuss how *Christians such as Wilberforce fought to end racism and slavery). But we are discussing how evolutionism has not only at times hindered science, but harmed society.*

And by the same metric, so did creationism.

I sure have, and that might make for an interesting *thread if God is justified in passing judgment and exterminating people as with the flood. But... it seems you did agree with me that one of the ills Darwinism has wrought in our world is genocides.*

Do you see how funny that is? You're trying to tarnish Darwinism by associating it with genocide, while at the same time waving away the genocides justified by Christianity. In case you don't know, that's called the fallacy of special pleading.

Correct.... I am some anonymous poster saying that a common ancestry belief system is religious in nature... a belief system which contributes nothing *towards medicine or technology; *and a belief system which has caused immeasurable and untold suffering in our world.*

And what impact do you think your willfully ignorant beliefs actually have on science?

 

[Right Divider]

So you believe God deliberately designed all the pathogens with the abilities to cause disease and suffering. That's pretty sick, don't you think?

All part of the curse that God put on the creation after Adam sinned. Get over it

Funny though how you could only muster three quotes, two of which came from people who don't work in biology, and all from the 1970's.

Whatever.

Except it turns out we have some very good examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record.

Stephen J. Gould, who was more well versed on the topic than you, disagrees. That is EXACTLY why he concluded that the fossil record does NOT support gradualism and instead indicates that some OTHER explanation is required (i.e., punctuated equilibrium).

See, that's how science works....quotes are meaningless; data is what matters.

Yes, this IS how it works. We reject your explanation because it does NOT fit the data, but thanks for playing.

 

[Jose Fly]

All part of the curse that God put on the creation after Adam sinned. Get over it

If you want to believe in a god that intentionally designed the ebola virus, I'll just let that speak for itself.

Whatever.

Nice job. :chuckle:

Stephen J. Gould, who was more well versed on the topic than you, disagrees. That is EXACTLY why he concluded that the fossil record does NOT support gradualism and instead indicates that some OTHER explanation is required (i.e., punctuated equilibrium).

Like I said, in science data trumps everything. And the fact that we see Darwinian gradualism in some fossil sequences is what matters.

Yes, this IS how it works. We reject your explanation because it does NOT fit the data, but thanks for playing.

It doesn't? Why, because you say so? Do you think things are so just because you say they are?

 

[Right Divider]

If you want to believe in a god that intentionally designed the ebola virus, I'll just let that speak for itself.

I'm perfectly willing to let God be God and I don't need your foolish definitions of Him.

Nice job. :chuckle:

Thanks

Like I said, in science data trumps everything. And the fact that we see Darwinian gradualism in some fossil sequences is what matters.

Data does NOT interpret itself, but you know that.

It doesn't? Why, because you say so? Do you think things are so just because you say they are?

No, neither your nor I gets to decide. But many evolutionists (like SJG) admit to the reality of the fossil record NOT supporting gradualism. This is why they describe explanations as to why there is another solution to the problem (the fossil record does NOT demonstrate gradual change).

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm perfectly willing to let God be God and I don't need your foolish definitions of Him.

And I'm perfectly willing to let those who believe in gods that intentionally design disease express that view as loudly and often as possible, so there's no mistake about what they believe.

Data does NOT interpret itself, but you know that.

It sure doesn't. And as we've seen, the evolutionary interpretation is winning the day, and has been for over 150 years. Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing to science over the same time.

No, neither your nor I gets to decide. But many evolutionists (like SJG) admit to the reality of the fossil record NOT supporting gradualism. This is why they describe explanations as to why there is another solution to the problem (the fossil record does NOT demonstrate gradual change).

Like I said, data rules in science. In cases where we have virtually complete fossil sequences, we see both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibria.

But I'm not sure why you're such an advocate for PE. You do realize that it's just a different mode of speciation, right? And that whether most speciation is Darwinian phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibria, or some other mode.....it's still evolution. IOW, this debate is merely over how evolution occurs.

So I guess if you want to take Gould's side and argue that most evolutionary change is via cladogenesis, that's fine with me.

 

[Right Divider]

And I'm perfectly willing to let those who believe in gods that intentionally design disease express that view as loudly and often as possible, so there's no mistake about what they believe.

You don't know the God described in the Bible. That's your problem.

It sure doesn't. And as we've seen, the evolutionary interpretation is winning the day, and has been for over 150 years. Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing to science over the same time.

Only in the mind of someone that is convinced before they start.

Like I said, data rules in science. In cases where we have virtually complete fossil sequences, we see both Darwinian gradualism and punctuated equilibria.

Oh course you see both. You'd see anything as long as you can make it fit your ever moving target of "evolution". It just has to be true.

But I'm not sure why you're such an advocate for PE. You do realize that it's just a different mode of speciation, right? And that whether most speciation is Darwinian phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibria, or some other mode.....it's still evolution. IOW, this debate is merely over how evolution occurs.

Yes, that old equivocal and morphable definition of "evolution" as any old change.

So I guess if you want to take Gould's side and argue that most evolutionary change is via cladogenesis, that's fine with me.

I was using SJG's shift FROM a gradualist to a PE as an example of someone that is an evolutionist, but who sees that the "standard evolutionary explanation" does NOT explain the ACTUAL data that we ALL have.

The ToE is so adaptable that it can handle ANY data or LACK of data. This hardly qualifies as a "scientific theory" (no possibility of being demonstrated as false).

 

[6days]

The genetic function can be determined in most cases with a belief in common ancestor, AND /OR with a belief in a common design and Designer. But the evidence better fits the common Designer model.

Really? You've seen how evolutionary common ancestry allows for the discernment of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy...
Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics
The very first two sentences in the abstract makes it absolutely clear what they did...
"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy."

The authors of your article give a theological explanation, that fits their belief system. They ignore a theogical explanation that is a even better fit for the evidence... the statistical graphical model inferring specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences is obviously the way an Intelligent Designer created.. Why wouldn't He? Even human designers create that way. *

Both creationist geneticists and evolutionists can perform research predicting that usually"" molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy".*

This problem for common ancestor beliefs is explained by G. de Beer
Are you talking about Gavin de Beer, who was born in 1899 and died in 1972? If you guys are going to try and argue via quote, at least get something from the last 20 years or so. *

Your argument is silly. It would be a valid argument if newer science has proved him wrong. But what he said is as true now as it was in 1971.*

BTW.... as the founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said [/b]" in fact over the last 100 years almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular Biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."[/b]

Well, we know for a fact that isn't the case (see above). Like I told Right Divider, in science data always trumps quotes....always.

Again..silly. I too can *assert ' we know for a fact, that the Harvard biology prof understands science, and that statement of his is correct.*

And like I have told you... science trumps your beliefs. Geneticists such as Sanford (author of 80 peer reviewed articles) made great advances in genetics while rejecting *common ancestry beliefs.

Sure...you can. (And we could discuss how Christians such as Wilberforce fought to end racism and slavery). But we are discussing how evolutionism has not only at times hindered science, but harmed society.

And by the same metric, so did creationism.

False.... I think you mean 'so did christianity'?

*That would be an interesting discussion, also discusing *how Christians such as Wilberforce fought to end racism and slavery. .But we are discussing how evolutionism has not only at times hindered science, but harmed society.

I sure have, and that might make for an interesting *thread if God is justified in passing judgment and exterminating people as with the flood. But... it seems you did agree with me that one of the ills Darwinism has wrought in our world is genocides.

Do you see how funny that is? You're trying to tarnish Darwinism by associating it with genocide, while at the same time waving away the genocides justified by Christianity. In case you don't know, that's called the fallacy of special pleading.

Again...genocides caused by Christianity might be an interesting thread for you to create, if you believe that. But, we were discussing how common ancestry beliefs have never made a contribution to science....and, in fact those beliefs have sometimes hindered science at times causing genocides, increased racism and even 'trophy hunting' aborigines for museum evolution displays. *

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't know the God described in the Bible. That's your problem.

I'm going by what you've told me, i.e., that you believe in a god that intentionally designed pathogens to cause horrible diseases.

Only in the mind of someone that is convinced before they start.

Uh, no...that's just reality. The evolutionary interpretation is winning the day, and has been for over 150 years. Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing to science over the same time.

I know you don't like that, but that just means your problem is with reality.

Oh course you see both. You'd see anything as long as you can make it fit your ever moving target of "evolution". It just has to be true.

And you base this accusation against scientists on what?

Yes, that old equivocal and morphable definition of "evolution" as any old change.

Uh, no...the debate between Darwinian gradualism and cladogenesis is over different ways in which evolution occurs. Even the nuttiest creationists don't really dispute that basic fact. I mean....what else do you think that debate is about? :idunno:

I was using SJG's shift FROM a gradualist to a PE as an example of someone that is an evolutionist, but who sees that the "standard evolutionary explanation" does NOT explain the ACTUAL data that we ALL have.

That's how science works. Eldredge and Gould noticed that population geneticists had figured out that most speciation was via cladogenesis, yet paleontologists were still interpreting fossil trends under the framework of Darwinian gradualism. So they wrote a paper intended for their fellow paleontologists, urging them to start utilizing cladogenesis more. That's it.

The ToE is so adaptable that it can handle ANY data or LACK of data. This hardly qualifies as a "scientific theory" (no possibility of being demonstrated as false).

Of course evolutionary theory can be falsified. Just because it hasn't, doesn't mean it can't.

 

[Jose Fly]

The authors of your article give a theological explanation, that fits their belief system.

????????? They developed a model based on evolutionary common ancestry, applied it to genetic sequences, and demonstrated how it accurately identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. There was nothing "theological" about it at all.

Again, this is absolutely fascinating to watch you scramble around trying to find some way to deny the reality that's before you. Maybe you should try Stripe's escape phrase and just tell me "evolutionists hate reading"? :chuckle:

They ignore a theogical explanation that is a even better fit for the evidence... the statistical graphical model inferring specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences is obviously the way an Intelligent Designer created..

Oh, so you know of a superior model. Where is it?

Your argument is silly. It would be a valid argument if newer science has proved him wrong. But what he said is as true now as it was in 1971.*

Actually, he's been shown to be wrong. Remember, he made his argument before genetic sequencing was available. Since then, we have a wealth of sequence data confirming homology in diverse taxa.

Again..silly. I too can *assert ' we know for a fact, that the Harvard biology prof understands science, and that statement of his is correct.*

But here's the difference....I directly showed you how evolutionary common ancestry is being used to discern genetic function. I didn't have to assert anything.

Geneticists such as Sanford (author of 80 peer reviewed articles) made great advances in genetics while rejecting *common ancestry beliefs.

Yet not a single aspect of modern genetics is based at all on creationism. How can that be if what you say is true?

False.... I think you mean 'so did christianity'?

No, I mean creationism. If you don't think beliefs about how God created has led to some racist beliefs, you need to brush up on your history.

But either way, I still don't see your point. No doubt some people have justified their racism via appeals to evolution, just as others justified it via appeals to creationism/Christianity. Therefore......? :idunno:

Again...genocides caused by Christianity might be an interesting thread for you to create, if you believe that.

No, I'm not talking about genocides caused by Christianity, I'm talking about genocides directly ordered by the God of the Bible, and carried out by the Israelites. That raises the obvious question....is genocide immoral, or isn't it?