Answers In Genesis on Facebook

[omega2xx]

There is no "law" to genetics.

Has your google button stopped working?

"Law" is outdated terminology.

Only for evolutionist because the can't prove any of Darwin's doctrines.

Science today preferred to use "theory", as scientific explanation for respective natural or man-made phenomena.

Evolution prefers and need everything to be a theory because they can't prove anything they say. Science uses both theory and law,

Genetics is explained in theory, just as evolution, just as that of gravity, thermodynamics, technology that required science.[/QUOTE]

Law is not outdated. We still have the laws of gravity because many of the have been PROVED scientifically. Proved theories are made laws.

Genetics is not a theory. Everything it says has been proven.

 

[omega2xx]

Fair, as you've literally ignored mountains of evidence thrown at you.

I have not ignored the evidence. I have ignored the links and you should know why by now.

Genetics have proven that DNA is constantly changing and adapting, to however degree is applicable and beneficial to the organism. So I don't know what drivel you're pulling from.

The drivel is genetics has proven that DNA is constantly changing. DNA does not change.

Uh, no. Sharing key species genes with pakicetus is what links whales to them, not hipbones. Birds have hipbones too, do you think they're related to pakicetus?

More drivel. pakicetus and whales do not have the same genes. The FACT that many species have hip bones is why you can't use that characteristic to try and link pakicetus to whales,

And this is why you're a poor example for a scientist. Science is ever changing and (ironically) evolving. If you've stopped viewing articles relating to evolution and related sciences, then you're grossly behind in terms of the most current and accurate information. It would be like some fool shutting out all knowledge of dinosaurs at 1842, and still thinks they're dragon-like reptiles.

And your an even poorer example of a scientist for not being willing to cut and paste something to show me Ia wrong.

When people like you started ignoring everything that's shown to you, in favor of "goddidit", and fail to provide anything to counter founded science but inane theories, magic, and gross misrepresentation. That is not what real science does. It's not all skepticism (with a theological answer and bias firmly in mind) denying and rejecting everything because you can't or won't understand it.

I have never brought God into this discussion, so why have you?

I understand that quite well. It's why whales and hippopotami are known to be separate species, yet have a common ancestor. Or apes and humans.

Wonderful. Now cut and past they evidence you have to prove what you say.

You've ignored everything else.

The only thing I have ignored is your links and you know why I do.

A baleen whale does not have "fossil fins," and it absolutely has remnant leg bones Since you've ignored photographic evidence, walk your happy *** to an actual whale skeleton and see for yourself.

They absolutely DO NOT have remnants of leg bones. There is no genetic way a leg can become a fin.

The fossil record and genetics have absolutely "said" that it happened.

Not true. There are not fossils between pakicetus and baleen whales. there are not even any fossils between baleen whales and other whales. Whe evolutionists try to use mutation as a mechanism for an addition change of a new characteristic, it only shows they do not understand what mutations can do and can't do.

No, they do not. The hips aren't even attached to the spine anymore; they have no function - similar to our own wisdom teeth, appendix, and tailbone.

Everything in man and beast has a purpose. The FACT that man had not discovered the purpose does not mean it does not have one. Whales do need a hip to swim.

No, "God made them into separate kinds, and these kinds have existed, unchanged, since the creation in the Garden" is about as unscientific as one can get. I am glad that intelligent people don't believe this.

There are scientist far more qualified in science than you are who believe evolution is an unproved, unscientific fraud.

Obviously you didn't look at the pictures close enough. A whale clearly has two nostrils.

Evidently you don't. I googled "whale fossils " and not one of them had 2 holes.

Do you think that people only have one nostril, because we have one hole in our skull?

What a silly thing to say. I KNOW we have 2 holes in our nose.

You're like the people who thought that elephant skulls were the skulls of cyclopses. Where are the nose bones!?

An even sillier thing to say. I guess that is the best evolutionists can do.

 

[gnostic]

Law is not outdated. We still have the laws of gravity because many of the have been PROVED scientifically. Proved theories are made laws.

Earth to omega2xx.

You do realise that you are living in the 21st century, and not in the 17th century.

The Newton's law don't apply out in deep space, for the rest of this galaxy, and for the rest of the universe. Large objects like stars, galaxies, planets and other objects in space, the rules has changed, where General Relativity (GR) are far more of use in the study of astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology.

None of current cosmology models (eg Big Bang model) used Newton's law. GR are frameworks of cosmological models.

Georges Lemaître, the Belgian astrophysicist and Roman Catholic priest, was one of the pioneers of the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang theory), when he wrote the Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom, in 1927. Lemaître used Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1916), as his main framework to the concept of expanding universe.

And Newton's law also don't apply in the quantum size particles and quantum field. His (Newton's) law has been replaced by quantum physics (quantum field theory) and particle physics (eg Standard Model and the Higgs boson).

If Newton's gravity is "law", then gravity would and should apply space moving faster than the speed of light or object larger than our Sun. It doesn't.

If Newton's gravity is "law", then gravity would and should apply to particles smaller than quark. It doesn't.

If the law don't apply in these circumstances, than how can it be "law"?

 

[McBell]

And your is lacking in some humor just as you Darwin theology is lacking is some evidence

Ah more bold faced lies to comfort yourself.

 

[McBell]

You rejected God long before I got into this forum. I will keep up the work of showing that "after their kind." refutes the theology of Darwin as long as I can.

"After their Kind" is nothing more than false bravado for weak minds.
That you think it "refutes" anything merely verifies the weak minds part.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have explained that many times, but in case you missed them I will do it again---I read links for over 20 years. No one of them ever offered any scientific evidence to support what they said, so I have quite reading, what is a waste of time.

Only if they include the science that allowed it. For example if their paper is about natural selection, they need to include the science that causes it.

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

Tragopogon (Asteraceae) has approximately 150 species native to Eurasia. Three diploid (2n = 2x =12) species (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius) that were introduced into eastern Washington State, USA, and adjacent Idaho in the early 1900s have recently and recurrently formed two allopolyploid (2n = 4x = 24) species, T. mirus (T. dubius × T. porrifolius) and T. miscellus (T. dubius × T. pratensis) in western North America (Ownbey, 1950⇓; Ownbey and McCollum, 1954⇓; Brown and Schaak, 1972⇓; Soltis and Soltis, 1989⇓, 1991⇓, 1999⇓; Soltis et al., 1995⇓; Cook et al., 1998⇓). Ownbey and McCollum (1954)⇓ used traditional cytogenetic methods to karyotype the six pairs of chromosomes in the introduced diploid species of Tragopogon. Along with morphological characters, Ownbey and McCollum (1954)⇓ observed sufficient chromosomal variation (e.g., terminal knobs and secondary constrictions) among the different populations of diploid species to infer the multiple origins of the two recently formed allopolyploids, T. mirus and T. miscellus. These recurrent formations were later confirmed with molecular methods (Soltis et al., 1995⇓)....

...Our goal is to determine whether chromosomal rearrangements or changes in genome size have occurred in the Tragopogon allotetraploids since their recent formation. One way to survey for genomic rearrangements in polyploids is to locate repetitive DNA physically on chromosomes using the tools of molecular cytogenetics such as fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), a technique that has provided insights into genome and chromosome evolution (reviewed in Heslop-Harrison, 1991⇓, 2000⇓; Jiang and Gill, 1994⇓, 1996⇓; Leitch and Bennett, 1997⇓; Schwarzacher and Heslop-Harrison, 2000⇓; Singh, 2003⇓)....

...We used molecular cytogenetics (FISH) to determine the number and distribution of these four tandem repeats to investigate the genetic consequences of allopolyploidy in Tragopogon. The FISH technique was carried out on multiple populations of the three diploid species (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius), and karyotypes were constructed. The same probes were then hybridized to multiple populations of the recently formed allotetraploid species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) to determine if chromosomal rearrangements had occurred subsequent to polyploidization. We also measured DNA C values for the same diploid and tetraploid Tragopogon species to determine the dynamics of genome size evolution in this polyploid complex...

...Table 1 shows the DNA C values calculated from plants of different populations of diploids (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius) and allotetraploids (T. miscellus and T. mirus). Genome size varied among different populations of the diploid species. Among the diploid species, T. dubius appears to have the smallest genome size and T. porrifolius the largest.

The DNA C values of T. mirus are not substantially different from the sum of the diploid parents. The genome size of T. mirus (population 2601 from Pullman, Washington, USA; mean 4C DNA value of 24.33) is additive of the genome sizes of its putative diploid progenitor populations, T. dubius (population 2613 from Pullman, Washington USA; mean 4C DNA value of 11.76) and T. porrifolius (population 2611 Pullman, Washington, USA; mean 4C DNA value of 12.5). Although we measured 4C DNA values for another population of T. mirus (2603 from Rosalia, Washington, USA), we cannot comment unequivocally on the additivity of its genome size because we were able to measure only the genome size of the T. dubius parent; plants of the second parent, T. porrifolius, are no longer present in Rosalia and are presumed extinct. Nonetheless, the two 4C DNA measurements for plants of T. porrifolius from other localities are very similar.

In contrast, the genome size of at least some populations of T. miscellus appears to have undergone downsizing when compared to its diploid progenitors. Populations 2604 (Moscow, Idaho, USA) and 2605 (Pullman, Washington, USA) have the same diploid parental genotypes (T. pratensis [2608 Moscow, Idaho, USA] and T. dubius [2613 Pullman, Washington, USA]), but are the result of reciprocal parentage (Soltis and Soltis, 1989⇓). The genome size values for these two populations are 20.30 pg and 20.99 pg, respectively, which are lower than the value predicted (24.20 or 23.27 pg) by adding the values of the diploid parents (t = 18.79958, P < 0.05; t = 13.88154, P < 0.05, for predicted values of 24.20 and 23.27, respectively). This level of downsizing—approximately 15%—is similar to that reported in the allopolyploids Brassica napus, B. juncea, and B. carinata (Naryan, 1998⇓). The genome size of a third population of T. miscellus (2606 from Spangle, Washington, USA) is 21.76 pg; the value for the parental T. pratensis from Spangle is 11.09 pg, but we lack genome size data for T. dubius from Spangle...

...Collectively, the distribution of the four tandem repetitive DNA loci (TPRMBO, TGP7, 18S-5.8S-26S rDNA, and 5SrDNA) among the chromosome pairs allowed the construction of molecular cytogenetic karyotypes for the three diploid species of Tragopogon (Fig. 5g). Thus, the number, location, and intensity of the FISH signals for all the mapped loci allowed for the identification of several of the diploid parental chromosomes in the polyploids. If rearrangements had taken place upon or immediately following polyploidization, we would expect to observe nonadditive patterns in the polyploids. For example, the number of rDNA loci in a polyploid could be greater or fewer than that found separately in the two diploid progenitors. Alternatively, rearrangements could move subtelomeric repeats found in the diploids to interstitial locations in the polyploids. Some synthetic allopolyploid species, including members of Triticeae (Shaked et al., 2001⇓) and Brassica (Song et al., 1995⇓), display rapid (within a few generations) evolution of polymorphic markers. However, other polyploid species show additive patterns, as we observed for Tragopogon; these include synthetic polyploids in Gossypium (Liu et al., 2001⇓) and the natural Nicotiana polyploids (N. rustica and N. arentsii) compared with their putative diploid parents (Lim et al., 2004⇓)....

... We found no evidence for major genomic rearrangements in the allopolyploids T. mirus and T. miscellus. The number and location of the tandem repetitive sequences TGP7 and TPRMBO appear to be directly inherited in the allopolyploids from their corresponding diploid ancestors without organizational or distributional changes. Similarly, the 18S-5.8S-26S and 5S rDNA loci in T. miscellus and T. mirus were exactly as predicted from the number and location of these loci in their diploid progenitors.
​

 

[omega2xx]

Earth to omega2xx.

You do realise that you are living in the 21st century, and not in the 17th century.

The Newton's law don't apply out in deep space, for the rest of this galaxy, and for the rest of the universe. Large objects like stars, galaxies, planets and other objects in space, the rules has changed, where General Relativity (GR) are far more of use in the study of astronomy, astrophysics and physical cosmology.

None of current cosmology models (eg Big Bang model) used Newton's law. GR are frameworks of cosmological models.

Georges Lemaître, the Belgian astrophysicist and Roman Catholic priest, was one of the pioneers of the expanding universe model (later known as the Big Bang theory), when he wrote the Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom, in 1927. Lemaître used Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1916), as his main framework to the concept of expanding universe.

And Newton's law also don't apply in the quantum size particles and quantum field. His (Newton's) law has been replaced by quantum physics (quantum field theory) and particle physics (eg Standard Model and the Higgs boson).

If Newton's gravity is "law", then gravity would and should apply space moving faster than the speed of light or object larger than our Sun. It doesn't.

If Newton's gravity is "law", then gravity would and should apply to particles smaller than quark. It doesn't.

If the law don't apply in these circumstances, than how can it be "law"?

No evidence, no response.

 

[omega2xx]

Ah more bold faced lies to comfort yourself.

More smoke to try and hide your inability to produce real scintific evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why is anyone still responding to this POE (and a rude one at that)??

 

[omega2xx]

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors

Tragopogon (Asteraceae) has approximately 150 species native to Eurasia. Three diploid (2n = 2x =12) species (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius) that were introduced into eastern Washington State, USA, and adjacent Idaho in the early 1900s have recently and recurrently formed two allopolyploid (2n = 4x = 24) species, T. mirus (T. dubius × T. porrifolius) and T. miscellus (T. dubius × T. pratensis) in western North America (Ownbey, 1950⇓; Ownbey and McCollum, 1954⇓; Brown and Schaak, 1972⇓; Soltis and Soltis, 1989⇓, 1991⇓, 1999⇓; Soltis et al., 1995⇓; Cook et al., 1998⇓). Ownbey and McCollum (1954)⇓ used traditional cytogenetic methods to karyotype the six pairs of chromosomes in the introduced diploid species of Tragopogon. Along with morphological characters, Ownbey and McCollum (1954)⇓ observed sufficient chromosomal variation (e.g., terminal knobs and secondary constrictions) among the different populations of diploid species to infer the multiple origins of the two recently formed allopolyploids, T. mirus and T. miscellus. These recurrent formations were later confirmed with molecular methods (Soltis et al., 1995⇓)....

...Our goal is to determine whether chromosomal rearrangements or changes in genome size have occurred in the Tragopogon allotetraploids since their recent formation. One way to survey for genomic rearrangements in polyploids is to locate repetitive DNA physically on chromosomes using the tools of molecular cytogenetics such as fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), a technique that has provided insights into genome and chromosome evolution (reviewed in Heslop-Harrison, 1991⇓, 2000⇓; Jiang and Gill, 1994⇓, 1996⇓; Leitch and Bennett, 1997⇓; Schwarzacher and Heslop-Harrison, 2000⇓; Singh, 2003⇓)....

...We used molecular cytogenetics (FISH) to determine the number and distribution of these four tandem repeats to investigate the genetic consequences of allopolyploidy in Tragopogon. The FISH technique was carried out on multiple populations of the three diploid species (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius), and karyotypes were constructed. The same probes were then hybridized to multiple populations of the recently formed allotetraploid species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) to determine if chromosomal rearrangements had occurred subsequent to polyploidization. We also measured DNA C values for the same diploid and tetraploid Tragopogon species to determine the dynamics of genome size evolution in this polyploid complex...

...Table 1 shows the DNA C values calculated from plants of different populations of diploids (T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius) and allotetraploids (T. miscellus and T. mirus). Genome size varied among different populations of the diploid species. Among the diploid species, T. dubius appears to have the smallest genome size and T. porrifolius the largest.

The DNA C values of T. mirus are not substantially different from the sum of the diploid parents. The genome size of T. mirus (population 2601 from Pullman, Washington, USA; mean 4C DNA value of 24.33) is additive of the genome sizes of its putative diploid progenitor populations, T. dubius (population 2613 from Pullman, Washington USA; mean 4C DNA value of 11.76) and T. porrifolius (population 2611 Pullman, Washington, USA; mean 4C DNA value of 12.5). Although we measured 4C DNA values for another population of T. mirus (2603 from Rosalia, Washington, USA), we cannot comment unequivocally on the additivity of its genome size because we were able to measure only the genome size of the T. dubius parent; plants of the second parent, T. porrifolius, are no longer present in Rosalia and are presumed extinct. Nonetheless, the two 4C DNA measurements for plants of T. porrifolius from other localities are very similar.

In contrast, the genome size of at least some populations of T. miscellus appears to have undergone downsizing when compared to its diploid progenitors. Populations 2604 (Moscow, Idaho, USA) and 2605 (Pullman, Washington, USA) have the same diploid parental genotypes (T. pratensis [2608 Moscow, Idaho, USA] and T. dubius [2613 Pullman, Washington, USA]), but are the result of reciprocal parentage (Soltis and Soltis, 1989⇓). The genome size values for these two populations are 20.30 pg and 20.99 pg, respectively, which are lower than the value predicted (24.20 or 23.27 pg) by adding the values of the diploid parents (t = 18.79958, P < 0.05; t = 13.88154, P < 0.05, for predicted values of 24.20 and 23.27, respectively). This level of downsizing—approximately 15%—is similar to that reported in the allopolyploids Brassica napus, B. juncea, and B. carinata (Naryan, 1998⇓). The genome size of a third population of T. miscellus (2606 from Spangle, Washington, USA) is 21.76 pg; the value for the parental T. pratensis from Spangle is 11.09 pg, but we lack genome size data for T. dubius from Spangle...

...Collectively, the distribution of the four tandem repetitive DNA loci (TPRMBO, TGP7, 18S-5.8S-26S rDNA, and 5SrDNA) among the chromosome pairs allowed the construction of molecular cytogenetic karyotypes for the three diploid species of Tragopogon (Fig. 5g). Thus, the number, location, and intensity of the FISH signals for all the mapped loci allowed for the identification of several of the diploid parental chromosomes in the polyploids. If rearrangements had taken place upon or immediately following polyploidization, we would expect to observe nonadditive patterns in the polyploids. For example, the number of rDNA loci in a polyploid could be greater or fewer than that found separately in the two diploid progenitors. Alternatively, rearrangements could move subtelomeric repeats found in the diploids to interstitial locations in the polyploids. Some synthetic allopolyploid species, including members of Triticeae (Shaked et al., 2001⇓) and Brassica (Song et al., 1995⇓), display rapid (within a few generations) evolution of polymorphic markers. However, other polyploid species show additive patterns, as we observed for Tragopogon; these include synthetic polyploids in Gossypium (Liu et al., 2001⇓) and the natural Nicotiana polyploids (N. rustica and N. arentsii) compared with their putative diploid parents (Lim et al., 2004⇓)....

... We found no evidence for major genomic rearrangements in the allopolyploids T. mirus and T. miscellus. The number and location of the tandem repetitive sequences TGP7 and TPRMBO appear to be directly inherited in the allopolyploids from their corresponding diploid ancestors without organizational or distributional changes. Similarly, the 18S-5.8S-26S and 5S rDNA loci in T. miscellus and T. mirus were exactly as predicted from the number and location of these loci in their diploid progenitors.
​

Thank you for confirming you don't understand what evidence i s.

 

[omega2xx]

Why is anyone still responding to this POE (and a rude one at that)??

If you were really a skeptic thinker, you would not accept the theology of Darwin and his evangelists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you for confirming you don't understand what evidence i s.

Explain how what I posted isn't evidence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have been on the Answers In Genesis facebook page for a couple of months. They post articles and arguments that their numerous followers eat up. They think evolution is ridiculous, athiestic and part of a plan to undermine the bible. A few people go to that page to try to convince them evolution is true but to no avail partly because the articles posted on the facebook page is very convincing to them.

I hope some you guys will share your knowledge of evolution on their facebook page because my scientific abilities are limited.

That's like trying to convince a roomful of blind people, who are convinced that the room they're in is blue, when it is clearly red. Willful blindness combined with willful ignorance is a combination that no amount of information or facts can break through.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I have not ignored the evidence. I have ignored the links and you should know why by now.

Except for the part where I provided you just what was in the links that you fear to expose yourself to.

The drivel is genetics has proven that DNA is constantly changing. DNA does not change.

Why, because you say so? If genetics has proven that DNA is constantly changing then guess what? It's constantly changing.

The FACT that many species have hip bones is why you can't use that characteristic to try and link pakicetus to whales,

That is not what links whales to pakicetus. That simply proves that whales at one point in time walked on land. So far as physical attributes, a feature of pakicetus' earbone that is unique to whales is what links it as a common ancestor, as well as the species line of pakicetus > Ambulocetus > Kutchicetus > Remingtonocetus > Rodhocetus > Protocetus > Dorudon > Squalodon > Kentriodon > Aulophyseter > Brygmophyseter > Aetiocetus > Janjucetus > and finally Cetotherium.

And your an even poorer example of a scientist for not being willing to cut and paste something to show me Ia wrong.

I never claimed to be a scientist. Secondly, I did "copy & paste" information, which you have flatly rejected (which, to point, I predicted.)

I have never brought God into this discussion,

So, we're not suppose to call people liars... But yeah, yeah you did.

Faith is a sounder guide than reason. Reason can go only so far, but faith has no limits.

The fact that whales have a hip bone is also not evidence. That is the way God made them.

Furthermore, you've made statements that paint biological sciences and the Theory of Biological Evolution as a theology, and at odds with Christianity:

They believe it not on the evidence but because it is necessary to keep the myth alive and continue to give the faithful they have not believed in vain. The faith of the evolutionist is greater than the faith of the Christians. How wonderful.

Lastly, you strongly uphold the "of their kind" simplification, which comes directly from your bible, and is largely touted by hacks like Ken Ham - which is ironic, as you slandered biological sciences as "Ham Science".

The laws of genetics confirms "after their kind" and refutes evolution

You rejected God long before I got into this forum. I will keep up the work of showing that "after their kind." refutes the theology of Darwin as long as I can.

Your entire argument is based off religion and your beliefs that your god has made animals just the way they are, and that evolution is a myth.

They absolutely DO NOT have remnants of leg bones.

Yes, they do, and you were given photographic evidence of this. It is very sad that you reject this because you've deemed it impossible, when it's literally placed right in front of your eyes.

Everything in man and beast has a purpose.

Except for wisdom teeth and appendixes. At one point they had a purpose - when we had larger jaws, and digested more raw plant matter - but then we (wait for it) evolved.

Whales do need a hip to swim.

No, they really don't. Their hips aren't even attached to their spines, and the swim through undulation of their spines and tail fins. You are remaining willfully ignorant of facts and realities, because they disprove your pre-conceived notions.

There are scientist far more qualified in science than you are who believe evolution is an unproved, unscientific fraud.

Oh yeah? Name some.

Evidently you don't. I googled "whale fossils " and not one of them had 2 holes.

I guess elephants have one nostril too?

Oh no! Two nostrils!

And whales have two nostrils too!

But people only have one hole in their skulls...

Surely we only have one nostril hole!

IT'S MADNESS!!!

 

[omega2xx]

Explain how what I posted isn't evidence.

It did not explain how an offspring could acquire a characteristic that is not in the gene poll of its parents.

 

[omega2xx]

Except for the part where I provided you just what was in the links that you fear to expose yourself to.

If you did I missed it. Post it again and I will respond.

Why, because you say so? If genetics has proven that DNA is constantly changing then guess what? It's constantly changing.

Wonderful. Post the evidence.

That is not what links whales to pakicetus. That simply proves that whales at one point in time walked on land. So far as physical attributes, a feature of pakicetus' earbone that is unique to whales is what links it as a common ancestor, as well as the species line of pakicetus > Ambulocetus > Kutchicetus > Remingtonocetus > Rodhocetus > Protocetus > Dorudon > Squalodon > Kentriodon > Aulophyseter > Brygmophyseter > Aetiocetus > Janjucetus > and finally Cetotherium.

There are no intermediate fossils between pakicetus and ambulocetus.

I never claimed to be a scientist. Secondly, I did "copy & paste" information, which you have flatly rejected (which, to point, I predicted.

If you say you did, I believe you but I don't remember it. If I have time today I will backtrack and try to find them

So, we're not suppose to call people liars... But yeah, yeah you did.

Post what I said and if called you a liar, I will apologize. If it is not I will expect you to apologize

Furthermore, you've made statements that paint biological sciences and the Theory of Biological Evolution as a theology, and at odds with Christianity:

It wasn't me. I have never heard of pain biology and I do not bring Christianity into discussions on evolution.

Lastly, you strongly uphold the "of their kind" simplification, which comes directly from your bible, and is largely touted by hacks like Ken Ham - which is ironic, as you slandered biological sciences as "Ham Science".

You have me confused with someone else. I don't know enough about Ken Ham to slander him. I have not slandered biological science. Rejecting what they say, is not slander.

Your entire argument is based off religion and your beliefs that your god has made animals just the way they are, and that evolution is a myth.

It is not. It is based on the laws of genetics. I do mention "after their kind" occasionally because it is proven every day, and it rejects evolution.

Yes, they do, and you were given photographic evidence of this. It is very sad that you reject this because you've deemed it impossible, when it's literally placed right in front of your eyes.

Pictures are not evidence. You can't show a picture of the bones of pakicetus and a picture of Ambulocetus and say they are related.

Except for wisdom teeth and appendixes. At one point they had a purpose - when we had larger jaws, and digested more raw plant matter - but then we (wait for it) evolved.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Science may find tgheir uses one day.

No, they really don't. Their hips aren't even attached to their spines, and the swim through undulation of their spines and tail fins. You are remaining willfully ignorant of facts and realities, because they disprove your pre-conceived notions.

Even if that is tgrue and I will haved to do dsome checking. It still doe snot explasin how a leg became a fin, which is genetically impossible and cna'tg be explainend b y mutations.

Oh yeah? Name some.[/QUOTE]


Without a back quote I don't know what you are referring to.

I guess elephants have one nostril too?

Oh no! Two nostrils!

And whales have two nostrils too!

But people only have one hole in their skulls...

Surely we only have one nostril hole!

IT'S MADNESS!!!

Some further checking shows you are right about the whale having 2 nostrils. However that can't link a land animal to a sea creature. There is no way the nostril can move from the nose to the top of the head.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you were really a skeptic thinker, you would not accept the theology of Darwin and his evangelists.

I accept what the evidence supports. The evidence overwhelming supports evolution. Biology does not work without it. Nothing you have said against it is convincing to me. In fact, I find your posts on this thread to be intellectually dishonest. I am convinced you are a POE.

 

[Jose Fly]

It did not explain how an offspring could acquire a characteristic that is not in the gene poll of its parents.

Yes it did. In fact, that's the entire point of the part I copied. It describes how the newly evolved species differs genetically from their parent species.

Is "Nuh uh" all you're going to be able to muster? Or are you going to address the actual content of the paper?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If you did I missed it. Post it again and I will respond.

No, it doesn't work like that. What I posted is still there, and I am still of a mind that I shouldn't have posted it in the first place, as the links we have given you are sufficient to set you on to doing your own work. I'm not going to hold your hand through this and post something again, just because you're too lazy to look at it closely before dismissing it off hand - as you've done with every scrap of evidence given in this thread.

There are no intermediate fossils between pakicetus and ambulocetus.

Before yesterday you didn't even know the name ambulocetus. Your lot constantly tossing out "but there are no intermediate fossils..." is just wailing against the inevitable; biding time as more evidence mounts against the claims of creationism, while still not actually saying anything about a god or divine creation/guidance.

That's the truly ironic part. Creationists are so against evolution because they think it disproves their stance, when it only sets out to explain the how of it all. Their grip and belief is so frail that the slightest contradiction to it sets them into a piranha-like frenzy.

Post what I said and if called you a liar, I will apologize. If it is not I will expect you to apologize
It wasn't me. I have never heard of pain biology and I do not bring Christianity into discussions on evolution.
You have me confused with someone else.

A.) I wasn't saying that you said I was a liar. I was avoiding out-right calling you one, while still showing that you did mention and bring your god into this debate.
B.) It was you, and I'm not confusing you with someone else. I literally quoted - and highlighted - all your statements from this thread alone that directly (and then strongly reference) your god and faith. I know you've got a phobia of links, but the quotes even link back to the original posts, where what you said can be clearly seen.

It is not. It is based on the laws of genetics. I do mention "after their kind" occasionally because it is proven every day, and it rejects evolution.

So in this very sentence, we see "My argument isn't religious, but the religious aspects are mentioned because they're proven". The mere fact that all you do is reject evolutionary evidence in fossil records, spout on about "kinds," and offer up some vague qualifier of "uh, genetics!" is laughably unscientific. Where at in genetics? What aspect specifically? What studies?

Provide something, as we have, or your rejection is nothing more than opinions born of ignorance.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Science may find tgheir uses one day.

Science did find their use, and it was tens of thousands of years ago.

Without a back quote I don't know what you are referring to.

Oh, we're going to play that game? What you have just quoted me with this ("provide some") was in response to a direct statement by you - and it's still there, I'm not going to repost it. By refusing to provide any names, I'm just going to assume that you have none.

Some further checking shows you are right about the whale having 2 nostrils. However that can't link a land animal to a sea creature.

Because you think it's impossible, yes, yes we've heard it before. Find me one sea creature - non-cetaceans, of course - that has nostrils and lungs, and requires air to breath.

 

[McBell]

Is "Nuh uh" all you're going to be able to muster? Or are you going to address the actual content of the paper?

Oh, he is not going to address the actual content.
He will at some point tell you you are ignorant of science and evidence, etc.