No its not, it has been explained to you why the big bang was nothing like a dynamite explosion.
You demonstrate nothing but your own ignorance by repeating this.
You are obviously unaware that the Neandertal genome has now been sequenced. It shows that not only are Neandertals extremely...
For someone with so much claimed experience with the written word you evidence the reading comprehension of a 4 year old, you seem unable to grasp the concept of a name being applied to a group being seperate from the names of individual members of that group.
There is no "which". The statement...
Wrong again. Firstly these is this:
And the quote you use above was in direct response to mooses "getting lucky" (i.e having sex) and mating.
This is what you were replying to.
Yes, you wrote that mating should result in changes in genetic information and you did it twice. Someone with an...
Wrong again. Here are your words. The only lying spree at the moment is not being carried out by those who accept evolution.
You equated successful mating with altering genetic information.
No he didn't. Don't tell lies.
In fact Darwin did not even coin the phrase Survival of the Fittest...
According to the rules (apparently) you are not allowed to say that a person has lied.
So Newhope is not lying, just completely unable to provide any source for what she has asserted even when asked more than once to do so.
So the 5,000 year age for human FOXP2 is just something that she made...
And yet you managed to think that "alteration of genetic data" occurs in the moose that managed to mate and did not understand what "Fittest" means even though there is a description of what Fitness means in evolutionary terms in that article.
Did you ever read that explanation?
Post #1009.
What I said is that Coelocanth is a common name for an order of fish, an order can contain many species. In the same way "humming bird" is a common name that covers a number of species of bird.
Your inability to comprehend the difference between "common name for an entire order of fish" and "a...
You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?
No fossil specimen of either Latimeria species have been found that are tens of millions of years old and the fossils that...
And your support for this is what?
Just because he taught then as true does not mean he taught them as historical events.
This simple fact that Genesis teaches that flying things were created on the day before any land animals is enough to successfully refute Genesis as providing an accurate...
In other words you need to make stuff up to correct the obvious mistakes in the bible.
An excuse is an excuse, no matter how hard you try and conceal it.
I will point out that you made the claim
While posting a picture of an ant of today, not a 92 million year old ant. You have yet to post a picture of a 92 million year old ant.
But rather than having the grace to admit this mistake you try and evade the issue.
Between the picture you used and...
:facepalm:
You do realise that this is a picture of a modern ant?
Which is why it looks a lot like a modern ant.
Now that is some epic fail (the picture has been around on the internet since 2007, a year before the paper was published about this ancient ant).
A picture of the actual 92...
The truth is that we didn't and no one claimed that we definitely did, we didn't have any such fossils.
We had fossils connecting humans to the ancestors of species that are now knucklewalking apes. We did not have fossils connecting humans to ancestors that were knucklewalking apes.
Thats why...
As its science I would say that all the information would referenced in the published article.
Theobald DL. "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry." Nature (2010) 2010 May 13;465(7295):219-22
Considering the first article suggests the exact opposite to the second you are misrepresenting it to a huge degree.
An article that shows that 99.5% of our genome is more similar to a chimps than to an orangs does not suggest that we are more closely related to orangs than chimps.
That is...
Still misrepresenting the facts and making stuff up, don't you realise yet how wrong your conclusions are?
Of course there are going to be parts of our genome that are closer to an orangs than a chimps, that is because we are all related and not all of the genome has to change to produce...
I wonder what is hidden by those ellipses? Of course the quote comes soley via Susan Mazur
Recursivity: Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueless
Here's a hint Wilson, when you see ellipses in quotes touted by organisations such as the Discovery institutes its a good clue that it is a quote mine...