You're projecting. You "predicted" 100% function yet require the complete and total opposite for TEH FALL. Which is why you attempt to portray evolution's beneficial mutations being false at the same time as "predicting" 100% function because you need to cover all bases to claim evolution is wrong. While everyone here understands your position is inherently hypocritical and internally contradictory (including your good self sweetie) your BS may work on the likes of Markie.<quoted text>
Sweetie, I don't know how familiar you are with the ability a crystal ball, but hit and miss is the way they go as well. That does not mean crystan balls have predictive capability. You could not make a prediction where it was important to do so and that was around whether or not the process of evolution should result in a non functional remnant.
Actually we already have. And you were informed MONTHS ago. Since mutations provide us with beneficial, neutral and detrimental effects we predict a pattern of nested hierarchies based on common ancestry. Remember it's not whether or not the whole genome has function that's the important part, it's the pattern of biology which creationism can only "predict" after the fact.Instead of babbling on why don't you tell me your predictions around non conding dna and its functionality? You still can't make one.
Or we can simply point out that deteriation of the genome is incompatible with 100% genomic function. Oh, and also that it contradicts reality due to the fact that the human population is increasing rather than decreasing due to genetic deterioration, and that offspring that suffer a serious reproductive disadvantage due to detrimental mutations are generally the exception, not the rule. This is why you still have not been able to provide us with a date for when genetic deterioration will reach critical mass.What don't you tell me why a deteriorating genome cannot possibly evidence of the fall? Why don't you articulate what these researchers suggest is happening in evolutionary terms? The answer is likely that you can't. You can only go quack quack.
Of course, it's all just a great big world-wide scientific conspiracy.Is it because I can't present a library full of outdated rubbish, contradictory data and a bunch of researchers prepared to knife each other for grant money.
Well don't worry, I'm a little older. Hence I never leave my allegations baseless. Remember you were *demonstrated* to be a hypocritical liar on the other thread, and you have been here. As I was only here 5 minutes and noted the others had you already pegged for dishonest behaviour.To sprooke allegations of dishonesty is about the best I would expect if I were debating a 10 year old.
Ain't our fault you're stuck in your ways.