I believe that over time in S@xual reproduction with migration that alleles can tend to be sorted into separate lines. Therefore, after a short period of time one would not expect "a jumble of recombined variants at each generation", but rather distinct lines with certain traits. See also the section "Breeding verses. Evolution" here: http://www.answersin...e1/chapter2.asp
What I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find in the article is the evidence he uses for his argument, making the claim is one thing, but what is the claim based upon? All I can find on the subject is the Ã¢â‚¬Å“10^2017 variations possible etcÃ¢â‚¬Â, now to my limited understanding this implies that he is talking about the entire gnome, and if the entire genome is up for grabs then variation should be equally expressed in all aspects of the body in no particular order, and no particular quantity
, thus there is nothing to prevent the doubling in size of the small intestine, nor an inappropriate sized or quantity of kidnies, basically randomness gone berserk.
a. Batten's point is not that a dog or jackel is necessarily degenerate when compared to a wolf,
b. but instead that the large amount created genetic information contained within an original kind is easily capable of accounting for the variation that we see today. He also points out that mutation could have been an additional source for some additional variation such as degenerate characteristics found in some breeds of dogs.
a. I find conflicting information on the subject like this:
Deterioration from perfection
An important aspect of the creationist model is often overlooked, but it is essential for a proper understanding of the issues. This aspect is the deterioration of a once-perfect creationÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.
b. I had to read this a couple of times because if we you going to combine variation with mutation and if you then add some selective pressure (which I presume you will need to prevent some sort of variation backtrackingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢) like Ã¢â‚¬Å“survival of the fittestÃ¢â‚¬Â, you will have come full circle and your back at evolution. From the article
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selectionÃ¢â‚¬â€evolutionists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a monopoly on this.
. All I can find by way of an explanation is the purported Ã¢â‚¬Å“loss of informationÃ¢â‚¬Â with out so much as any proof of the concept I might add.
It gets even more bizarre with this quote
In an extreme case, where a single pregnant animal or a single pair is isolated, e.g., by being blown or washed onto a desert island, it may lack a number of genes of the original population. So when its descendants fill the island, this new population would be different from the old one, with less information. This is called the founder effect.
Shock horror, I do believe he is proposing that the environment and a small gene pool amplifies the evolutionary
excuse me, the variation process.
Now this is interesting
Figure 1: The evolutionary Ã¢â‚¬ËœtreeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ which postulates that all todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals). This is what evolution is really all about.
Figure 2: The alleged creationist Ã¢â‚¬ËœlawnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ this represents the caricature of creationism presented by Teaching about EvolutionÃ¢â‚¬â€the Genesis Ã¢â‚¬ËœkindsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ were the same as todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s species.
Figure 3: The true creationist Ã¢â‚¬ËœorchardÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis Ã¢â‚¬ËœkindsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (creationists often call them baramin, from Hebrew bara = create, and min = kind). Much of the evidence of variation presented by Teaching about Evolution refutes only the straw-man version of creationism in Figure 2, but fits the true creationist Ã¢â‚¬ËœorchardÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ model perfectly well.
I think at this point I will need to get some consensus, for participants in this discussion, is it figure 2 or 3 that is the creationist model?