Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

These all existed. They are real. They were discovered in a combination of research and chance. They were discovered in layers, and dated to ranges, that are chronologically expected.

How do you explain their incredibly close relationship to one another if not through hereditary processes?

These ears are related in the same way that your skin color is related to that of your great great grandparents. They are realted just as your eye color is related to the eye color of your mom and dad...To deny any of this, Called the Theory of Heredity, is akin to denying the fact that the Earth is a sphere suspended in orbit around the Sun, the latter of which is more fully explained by the Theory of Gravity.

https://www.brightstorm.com/science/biology/mendelian-genetics/heredity-theory/
http://www.ck12.org/biology/Theory-of-Heredity/lesson/Theory-of-Heredity-Advanced-BIO-ADV/

https://ncse.com/library-resource/gravity-its-only-theory

(See how stupid the last one seems when it deals with a topic you know a little bit about?)

I'm not doubting these skulls are fakes, but those skulls do not appear to be human. Just because they are similar does not mean one mutated into the other as you are wont to believe. You are demonstrating comparative anatomy in order to support ToE. Appearance has long been used to show relatedness. Using evolution by natural selection, we get unrelated species in similar environments that have evolved into similar forms. Evo claims that these similar structures show evidence of different organisms adapting to different environments. The similarities also mean that these different organisms came from a common ancestor. There can be different structures, too, but in some cases evolution claims that they came to look similar because of the environment.

To summarize, evo claims that if organisms look alike, then they have a common ancestor. Evo also claims if organisms are different, then they changed over time to look similar because of their environment. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

So, what's my explanation for the similarities of comparative anatomy? It's simple enough. There are basically only so many ways for creatures that have skeletal structures to exist and have motor skills. We can have these bone structures, but they have to be used a certain way for it to function, i.e. ears are used to hear, a nose is used to breathe and so on. Other creatures may have different ways to to accomplish the five senses, but the function is based on the design. We can see that these were designed and not the byproduct of just something coming together as such. In other words, form follows function. Homology is not evidence of evolution. It is simply evidence of a limited solution space and design.

 

[james bond]

You are right, James Bond, the bible isn't a science book. That's the only part of your reply that I agree with.

That's because nothing in the bible is science. Nothing in Genesis creation is remotely scientific, it is just superstitious and ignorant nonsense.

Do you even know science is?

Science is investigative method of acquiring knowledge about nature, as in EXPLAINING (A) WHAT IS IT, and (B) HOW IT WORK.

Genesis explain nothing, surrounding it with myth borrowed from myths of much older civilisations (Egyptian, Babylonian and Syrian-Canaanite).

The myth about the creation and flood, mostly come the Babylonian literature, but the Babylonian myths (2nd and 1st millennia BCE) come from the older Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation-culture of the late 3rd millennium BCE.

The myth of creating the world with the word, originally came from early 3rd millennium BCE, with the Egyptian god, Ptah. The Egyptians were great believers in magic and miracles, especially ones that can be incanted in words, like spells, for the words have power, not only for creation, but also like resurrection.

When was the Genesis and other books of Old Testament compiled? Around mid-1st millennium BCE.

And speaking of resurrection, the gospels also contain not so original belief (myth). The Egyptians believe in resurrection and afterlife, as far back as Old Kingdom period (when they began building pyramids in the 3rd dynasty), perhaps even earlier. Evidences for such belief can be found in the hieroglyphs written within the pyramids of 5th and 6th dynasty (late 3rd millennium BCE.

The soul (known in Egyptian as "ba") being judged, far back as old kingdom, but most famously depicted in the Book of the Dead of the New Kingdom period (between mid to late 2nd millennium BCE).

Jesus wasn't the first messianic or saviour-type figure (Re, Osiris, Horus, the Greek Dionysus and Orpheus). He wasn't even the first to claim to be "son of God" (Gilgamesh, Heracles, Perseus, Achilles), or the first god to die (Geshtu, Ba'al).

Nothing in Hebrew and Christian belief were original. They were influenced by religions of the cultures and civilisations of their neighbors.

Boy, your takes on the Bible makes you sound ignorant.

Again, I know what science is and have been using it. Christians invented the scientific method to honor God.

You were led to believe that the creation and the flood were myths because the evo science will not accept the God Theory. Prior to the 1800s, science was not like the way it is today. Many scientists believed in God. Today it's about 50/50 based on Pew.

If you're so knowledgeable about science, then please explain how the first cell came to be. I'm willing to explain my views, but can't counter your opinions. Everybody is entitled to those. Provide some examples of science topics to discuss and we can get farther.

 

[james bond]

Atheist crowd is just you demonstrating your own red herrings and straw man, especially when you completely ignored the fact that there are many Christians, here and elsewhere, who accept evolution as accepted biological theory on changes.

Charles Darwin himself, was also a Christian. Are you going to ignore that too?

Go back and stick your head in the sand if you want. Not all Christians agreed with your straw man of "atheistic" science.

Darwin was a Christian, but he disavowed it and became a non-Christian. See, atheists are usually wrong. Do you have any other topics from Darwin you can show us?

Here's one. Darwin thought that there was competition between similar species in the same environment. For example, rats and squirrels will compete for the same food in order to survive. Do you agree?

Darwin was wrong. Survival is not always about competition.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=131308&org=NSF

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not doubting these skulls are fakes, but those skulls do not appear to be human. Just because they are similar does not mean one mutated into the other as you are wont to believe.

It's a good point; similar appearance, adaptation, design improvements, do not even hint at unguided random processes. Far less prove them.

 

[gnostic]

Darwin was a Christian, but he disavowed it and became a non-Christian. See, atheists are usually wrong. Do you have any other topics from Darwin you can show us?

Again, you are still ignoring that there are other theists, including Christians and Jews, who accept evolution.

And the current stance of Roman Catholic church, is that Vatican accept evolution. And I am not just talking about Natural Selection.

As to Darwin, he had never renounced Christianity, and he wrote in his letter, that he was never an atheist, but he did have leaning towards agnosticism:

"...absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist."

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind"

Again, I have asked you, can a person be a Christian, and still accept evolution (not just natural selection)?

I asked this same question of you, because you are continually ignoring the fact that there are Christians here, who don't reject evolution. You are dishonestly red herring and attacking strawman, when you keep equating evolution with atheism.

 

[Sapiens]

There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence. I realize that this could easily be criticized as the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, but I have provided two experts who support my claim. Let's see whether you can do better.

Yep that's what you said. Note that the claim is "There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence."

I demonstrated that there are, and they are not "mythical".

So you lose.

If you want to shift the conversation to the historicity of Jesus, start a new thread.

 

[Sapiens]

Couldn't stick to five points. Tsk. And more claims of strawmen and red herrings. Hm... Can ToE be built on strawmen and red herrings?

I'm trying to stick to biology. AFAIK no one has been able to breed two plants to make a flower.

Strawman.

It would be on youtube if they did. Many people like and want flowers. Yet, there they are and some are weeds. Probably a mutation. I mentioned the guy who cross bred marijuana to make a more potent plant. Would you rather smoke his or the GMO? If you rather smoke his, then give up the hypocrisy of GMO. Practice what you preach. Oh yeah, the oak tree or the acorn? Or the chicken or the egg? The original tree of life BS. If any were true, you'd be jumping up and down and tossing evidence in front of my face. I've already shown how complex the egg is with my gif. Same with the acorn.

So, is there any progress from drilling Chicxulub? Did the atheist scientists find the evidence that they're looking for? What is that anyway? Aliens? Ha ha.

This is getting too stupid, welcome to ignore.

 

[Zosimus]

Same species. Perfect point.

EDIT: Both white males - both of European descent. They probably have similar genetic histories and follow similar genetic haplo group paths... So, again, yes. Tell me the stunt double's name and I can come pretty close to nailing that down even more.

His name's David Leith.

It's hilarious, though. When you see two people who look alike, they must be related.

But what happens when you see two people who don't look alike?

Well, they're still related! So what do physical similarities mean? Apparently, nothing!

 

[Zosimus]

Here you show either a fundamental ignorance of the ToE or are revealing your dishonesty.

You said:

Here you show:

EITHER a fundamental ignorance...
OR are revealing your dishonesty...

So I'm showing one of two things? Showing a fundamental ignorance or showing a fundamental are...

I think you need to work on your parallelism, mate.

 

[Zosimus]

Yep that's what you said. Note that the claim is "There are no serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence."

I demonstrated that there are, and they are not "mythical".

So you lose.

If you want to shift the conversation to the historicity of Jesus, start a new thread.

As I said, there are zero serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence.

A mathematically-challenged student of the history of science doesn't count, mate. Back to the drawing board for you, I'm afraid.

 

[Parsimony]

Clearly, you have expanded this discussion to the point it's a mess. Do you have diarrea of the fingers typing away like this? My little joke.

Either I address everything you say and you complain that I'm typing too much or I don't address everything you say and you complain that I ignored one or more of your points. Sounds like I can't please you either way.

I'll start from the bottom and work up since it's more opinion and links which you've failed to explain. Most of us would've got a lot more from you if you had done this. If you have a background in biology, then let it out. Just stick to one point or a few points that are important to you and you can explain. Creation scientists understand that at one point we had unbreakable bones. Else why did I mention the benefits and what we are trying to achieve. It just goes to show that we long to get back what we had and that was perfection. People in ancient times had this over us today. Today, we still admire perfection such as a perfect test score, a perfect game or a perfect achievement in sports. This is evidence of creation.

So you agree that the bone density mutation is beneficial? Good. We do know that it is in fact a mutation, as the location of the mutation was found in the genome. To quote from the earlier posted source:

“What we found is that the high bone density in this family behaved as a single gene disorder,” Lifton said. “We then went on to map the location of the gene and identify the specific mutation responsible for the high bone density.”

I would also like to know what scientific evidence exists that the ancestors of modern humans had unbreakable bones. That is quite a big claim. You do call creation "creation science", so surely there is not only some scientific evidence of unbreakable bones in our past but also that the Earth and its ecosystems came into existence within the span of six days. Not five, not seven, but six exactly. I don't know of any applicable dating techniques that can tell the age of something down to the resolution of days.

God took seven days as a model for us humans. It also shows His progression, His science, how things came to be and give us clues to help find the truth.

But He didn't need to. That was my point. He could have simply commanded us to take a day off in the week for the sake of our rest. Likewise, He didn't have to use a worldwide flood to kill the sinners of Noah's day. He could have struck everyone dead in an instant. You never did supply an answer for why He would command Noah to take every kind of animal aboard the ark if He wanted some of them the become extinct in the flood.

Evolution contradicts that and gets us further from the truth

How so?

The rest can be discarded as you do not provide answers in your own words, but links. The only things you provide is opinion. It's laughable. None of us know how you think or get any glimmer of the type of human being you are unless you like to express boring.

Funny, so you'd rather I make claims without being able to back them up with a source? That's a very strange requirement for an argument. However, if you feel that it is okay to discard my links, I guess that means I can discard any links you post as well. It's only fair, right?

So how about them fallacies?

- "I can't imagine how a live bearing animal started." (Argument from incredulity. Your inability to imagine something has no bearing on reality.)
- "Birds didn't come from dinosaurs. There were birds during the time dinosaurs existed." (Non-sequitur. Descendant populations can coexist with ancestral populations, which is why white Americans and white Europeans both coexist today even though white Amercans can trace their ancestry back to Europe. Also, most dinosaurs did not evolve into birds in the first place.)
- "Atheists want to believe in positive mutations when all mutations are negative or neutral. There may be a positive benefit, but one can't remove the negative." (Moving the goalposts. Now how did I know that was going to happen? You very clearly stated that a mutation that increases bone density is beneficial. So either you were lying when you said you thought it was beneficial or you are changing your mind, hence moving the goalposts. This also verges on a red herring or straw-man because you single out atheists even though atheism and evolution have no need for each other.)
- "If you want me to start, then I'll say there is no explanation for how the single-cell, algae, bacteria, universe, or anything started. Evolution is dead." (Straw-man. Evolution isn't about abiogenesis or the origin of the universe.)
- "ToE is more than biology" (Straw-man. You've yet to provide any authoritative source giving a definition that encompasses more than biology.)
- "Evolution is a worldview" (Straw-man. If evolution is a worldview them so is "round Earthism".)
- "Would you rather smoke his or the GMO? If you rather smoke his, then give up the hypocrisy of GMO. Practice what you preach." (Another GMO red herring. Evolution need not exist for GMO's to exist or vice-versa.)
- "AFAIK no one has been able to breed two plants to make a flower." (Straw-man. Nobody said that flowers suddenly popped up by two plants breeding together.)

Total fallacies: 14

 

[leibowde84]

false claims on your part......

you can follow the logic

but you don't want to

What false claims have I made specifically?

 

[McBell]

How do you figure that I start the discussion ToE when I'm in the creation camp?

It seems you have demonstrated that it is ignorance, not dishonesty.

Perhaps one day you will be able to understand that you have not been discussing the ToE, but instead have been rambling and whining over strawmen and red herrings that are not the ToE.
Sadly, you have been told that very thing over and over and over...
But instead of trying to comprehend it, you pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and continue as if nothing happened.

Any you, Mestemia, you haven't said anything except to complain or criticize creation. So I figure you haven't got much to say.

Creation has nothing going for it except the lengths people will go to reveal their dishonesty and or ignorance.
As you have thoroughly demonstrated in this thread.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you flaunt your dishonesty and ignorance like a proud mother shows off her new born baby?

 

[McBell]

You said:

Here you show:

EITHER a fundamental ignorance...
OR are revealing your dishonesty...

So I'm showing one of two things? Showing a fundamental ignorance or showing a fundamental are...

I think you need to work on your parallelism, mate.

*yawn*
So I was wrong.
You were revealing both your ignorance and dishonesty.
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sapiens]

As I said, there are zero serious scholars who doubt Jesus' existence.

A mathematically-challenged student of the history of science doesn't count, mate. Back to the drawing board for you, I'm afraid.

All I needed to score was one, I gave you several, you clearly lose.

 

[jonathan180iq]

His name's David Leith.

It's hilarious, though. When you see two people who look alike, they must be related.

But what happens when you see two people who don't look alike?

Well, they're still related! So what do physical similarities mean? Apparently, nothing!

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Leith
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Pitt

Paternally, they are very closely related. I don't have DNA samples to genetically test their genotypical closeness. But I don't need it because the secondary evidence of their surname History, combined with their phenotypical similarity, gives us a good enough understanding of why and how they are related.

On a broader scale, they are both members of the same species, and products of very similar familiar environments over the last few hundred years. The same is true of Uma Thurman and the random tribal kid. Their variances come from their ancestral environmental adaptations. One has developed a slight loss of pigmentation over generations of existing in cooler and wetter climates, while the other has not.

There's really nothing complicated about this at all. The only thing you have to do is look at their phenotypical differences and you can make pretty accurate assumptions about their genetic make up. If you want to verify those genetic assumptions, all you have to do is start collecting DNA samples from all of the varying human ethnicities all over the planet and form some type of database for comparison.

Luckily for us, this is already being done...

https://www.genome.gov/10001772/all-about-the--human-genome-project-hgp/
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

So THEN, after starting with phenotypical assumptions and comparing them to genotypical data to validate those assumptions, all one has to do in order to verify the hypothesis of common decent is to compare the genotypical research from human migration with that of other genetically mapped organisms, namely the Great Apes. Once that's done, you'll see that there are genetic markers up and down both maps which clearly indicate shared lineage. The process is nearly identical when determining the biological validity of parent-child relationships.

Matching markers indicate common origin. It's that simple.

And if none of that was good enough for you to start listening more closely to evolutionary explanations, you're still free to check out the corroborating evidence found both Archaeologically and Geologically.

There's a reason why more complex remains aren't discovered until certain points along the geological timeline, and it's not magic. Old stuff is on the bottom. New stuff is on the top. The trend line for every organism ever found moves from simple to complex, as it increases from old to new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype

PS - Everything I've said to you is true of every living organism on Earth. It does not just apply to human evolution, or skull/brain development.

 

[Zosimus]

All I needed to score was one, I gave you several, you clearly lose.

Sorry. You don't get to set yourself up as your own judge. Kindly prove that any of the people you have supposedly referenced are serious scholars.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm not doubting these skulls are fakes

I've seen them directly pulled from the Earth, untouched and undisturbed for millenia.

Your assumption that they are fake is absolutely ridiculous.

but those skulls do not appear to be human

They aren't. They are clearly labeled.

Just because they are similar does not mean one mutated into the other as you are wont to believe.

You're right. Not on assumption alone.
Genetic testing has to be done in order to verify, which it has.

You are demonstrating comparative anatomy in order to support ToE

Just as you do when you look at ducks and geese and recognize that they come from the same family.

Appearance has long been used to show relatedness. Using evolution by natural selection, we get unrelated species in similar environments that have evolved into similar forms.

...I don't think you understand forms.

To summarize, evo claims that if organisms look alike, then they have a common ancestor. Evo also claims if organisms are different, then they changed over time to look similar because of their environment. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

...You certain don't understand forms.

Certain environments are better suited to certain adaptations. That's the very basis and connection between species and their environments.
Polar Bears aren't found in the Sahara, clearly. I'm not sure what you're not understanding.
This is also why the fossils of tropical plants can be found in places that are now arid and cold... Environments change - so do their inhabitants.

So, what's my explanation for the similarities of comparative anatomy? It's simple enough. There are basically only so many ways for creatures that have skeletal structures to exist and have motor skills. We can have these bone structures, but they have to be used a certain way for it to function, i.e. ears are used to hear, a nose is used to breathe and so on. Other creatures may have different ways to to accomplish the five senses, but the function is based on the design. We can see that these were designed and not the byproduct of just something coming together as such. In other words, form follows function. Homology is not evidence of evolution. It is simply evidence of a limited solution space and design.

How were they designed?
Who designed them?
When did it happen?
Are modern complex organisms NOT related to their older and simpler cousins biologically, in your point of view?
If they aren't, where did they come from?
How do complex organisms form?

 

[Zosimus]

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Leith
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Pitt

Paternally, they are very closely related. I don't have DNA samples to genetically test their genotypical closeness. But I don't need it because the secondary evidence of their surname History, combined with their phenotypical similarity, gives us a good enough understanding of why and how they are related.

On a broader scale, they are both members of the same species, and products of very similar familiar environments over the last few hundred years. The same is true of Uma Thurman and the random tribal kid. Their variances come from their ancestral environmental adaptations. One has developed a slight loss of pigmentation over generations of existing in cooler and wetter climates, while the other has not.

There's really nothing complicated about this at all. The only thing you have to do is look at their phenotypical differences and you can make pretty accurate assumptions about their genetic make up. If you want to verify those genetic assumptions, all you have to do is start collecting DNA samples from all of the varying human ethnicities all over the planet and form some type of database for comparison.

Luckily for us, this is already being done...

https://www.genome.gov/10001772/all-about-the--human-genome-project-hgp/
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

So THEN, after starting with phenotypical assumptions and comparing them to genotypical data to validate those assumptions, all one has to do in order to verify the hypothesis of common decent is to compare the genotypical research from human migration with that of other genetically mapped organisms, namely the Great Apes. Once that's done, you'll see that there are genetic markers up and down both maps which clearly indicate shared lineage. The process is nearly identical when determining the biological validity of parent-child relationships.

Matching markers indicate common origin. It's that simple.

And if none of that was good enough for you to start listening more closely to evolutionary explanations, you're still free to check out the corroborating evidence found both Archaeologically and Geologically.

There's a reason why more complex remains aren't discovered until certain points along the geological timeline, and it's not magic. Old stuff is on the bottom. New stuff is on the top. The trend line for every organism ever found moves from simple to complex, as it increases from old to new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype

PS - Everything I've said to you is true of every living organism on Earth. It does not just apply to human evolution, or skull/brain development.

The sad thing is that you actually believe all that nonsense that you just posted. I swear, every time I hear someone rattle off this type of horse manure as though there were the slightest shred of validity to it, I marvel.

Let's start with the absurd claim "...after starting with phenotypical assumptions and comparing them to genotypical data to validate those assumptions, all one has to do in order to verify the hypothesis of common decent is to compare the genotypical research from human migration with that of other genetically mapped organisms, namely the Great Apes."

Okay, you start with an assumption. Then you want to validate the assumption. What's the procedure?

1. Use the assumption to make predictions.
2. Check the data to see whether the predictions are bourne out in the real world.
3. If the predictions are bourne out, conclude that the assumption has been validated.

The problem is that this is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Heck, I could use this to validate any assumption.

Assume that Vishnu maintains the universe.
1. If that is true, then the universe will exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. Thus, my assumption that Vishnu maintains the universe has been validated. I guess we all need to be Hindu now!

Assume that Richard Dawkins is the president of the United States.
1. If that is true, then he will be famous and controversial.
2. He is famous and controversial.
3. Thus, my assumption that Richard Dawkins is the president of the United States has been validated!
From now on, please refer to Richard Dawkins as "Mr. President."

I could go on and on!

And then.... THEN... as if this weren't enough, you propose to repeat the procedure to validate the hypothesis of common descent! I mean, it's not enough that something could go wrong during the first phase – now you want to have a second phase in which still more could go wrong!

Then you blithely continue, "Matching markers indicate common origin. It's that simple."

Well. If it weren't for the multiple logical fallacies, I might be tempted to agree.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The sad thing is that you actually believe all that nonsense that you just posted. I swear, every time I hear someone rattle off this type of horse manure as though there were the slightest shred of validity to it, I marvel.

Let's start with the absurd claim "...after starting with phenotypical assumptions and comparing them to genotypical data to validate those assumptions, all one has to do in order to verify the hypothesis of common decent is to compare the genotypical research from human migration with that of other genetically mapped organisms, namely the Great Apes."

Okay, you start with an assumption. Then you want to validate the assumption. What's the procedure?

1. Use the assumption to make predictions.
2. Check the data to see whether the predictions are bourne out in the real world.
3. If the predictions are bourne out, conclude that the assumption has been validated.

The problem is that this is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Heck, I could use this to validate any assumption.

Assume that Vishnu maintains the universe.
1. If that is true, then the universe will exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. Thus, my assumption that Vishnu maintains the universe has been validated. I guess we all need to be Hindu now!

Assume that Richard Dawkins is the president of the United States.
1. If that is true, then he will be famous and controversial.
2. He is famous and controversial.
3. Thus, my assumption that Richard Dawkins is the president of the United States has been validated!
From now on, please refer to Richard Dawkins as "Mr. President."

I could go on and on!

And then.... THEN... as if this weren't enough, you propose to repeat the procedure to validate the hypothesis of common descent! I mean, it's not enough that something could go wrong during the first phase – now you want to have a second phase in which still more could go wrong!

Then you blithely continue, "Matching markers indicate common origin. It's that simple."

Well. If it weren't for the multiple logical fallacies, I might be tempted to agree.

You're either very ignorant of the science behind genetic testing or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension... It could be both.
You could also be willfully ignorant because you don't like your worldview challenged, but I don't know enough about you to call that one.

How is genetically testing a hypothesis (admittedly based on the similarity of physical characteristics) the same as crediting Vishnu with the creation of the Universe, or testing flawed assumptions about the profession of anyone?

If the genetic markers indicated similar lineage, then would that not validate the physical connection?
If that wouldn't be good enough for you, what would?
Everything else after that validation of the original assumption would simply further support the conclusion, would it not?
And if it wouldn't, what would?

I find it interesting that you tried to attack the argument based on some reaching attempt of calling it a logical fallacy, rather than picking apart any of the science that's behind it.

All you have to do in order to blow my whole argument to smithereens is show me a shared physical trait between organisms that is not genetically related somehow.
If you can do that, then I'll admit defeat. As a secondary bonus you'll probably also win a Nobel prize for forever changing the landscape of scientific understanding, specifically in Biology.