If asked...

[AndromedaRXJ]

Every living organism (aside from bacteria) on the planet belongs in this taxonomic rank.

And aside from archaea. Also, eukaryote it self is not a taxonimic rank. It has a rank being that it's a domain. But eukaryote is not a rank.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Of course not.

And why not? A cat can't produce a dog..yet a reptile evovled into a bird? Makes no sense.

Correct. And of course at no point does any of those ancestral elephants ever give birth to an offspring of a different species.

Completely missing the point.

Then why do you keep asking for observational evidence of someth7ng that the theory predicts to be impossible?

The reason why science has never observed one 'kind'giving birth to another is because science would not expect that to ever occur.

What you are asking for as proof of evolution would in fact disprove it.

My point is not addressed. You don't believe a cat will ever get to the point of producing a dog...yet you believe that an elephant originated from something vastly different than what it is today?? Isn't that kinda the same thing?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Buddy, the irony there is fantastic.

You do realise that HOVIND IS IN PRISON FOR TAX EVASION?

Of course. What does that have to do with your religion (evolution) being paid for by tax dollars to be taught in school?

Evolutionary biology generates billions for the global economy

So as long as it is economically feasible, lets just continue to spread the lies.

Hovind is in prison for defrauding the tax department.

True. But again, what does that have to do with your religion (evolution) being paid for by tax dollars to be taught in school?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A basal eukaryote was a microorganism. It would have looked superficially very different from an elephant. But an elephant is still an eukaryote.

I am talking about any specific animal from which the elephant generated.

And that's where you're wrong, because you're basing organism's similarities off of superficial looks due to a lack of detailed knowledge of biology and how similar organisms really are beyond looks. A major fallacy I recommend you try to overcome.

That statement would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that both animals/people tend to look similar to whatever they descended from. That is why looks are important.

The fact of the matter is an elephant has everything the first organism has and more. The first organism doesn't have any major unique features the elephant doesn't have.

Oh so the first organisms weighed tons of pounds with big floppy ears, tusks, and trunks? Oh, I didn't know that.

As I keep telling you, in Evolution, organisms develop off of existing features. An Elephant is just a very advanced variation of the first organism, as is all other life.

"Very advanced". That is the theory, of course. You can call it "very advanced" all day long, but where is the observation and the link to get from the very first organisms and a dang elephant.

The reason it may seem "totally different" is due to the degree of advancement and/or superficial looks. But at the end of the day, an elephant is still a variation of the first organism.

Once again, that is your presupposition speaking, not the science. You assume that it is a variation of the first organism. That is the theory. That isn't the observation..that isn't the experiment.

Two different kinds of organisms are two different organisms that have a collection of unique features the other doesn't have. That's why it would not be Evolution if an eagle turned into a squirrel, for example. Eagles have a large collection of unique features a squirrel doesn't have, and a squirrel has a large collection of unique features the eagle doesn't have.

Exactly? You just said it; Eagles have a large collection of unique features that a squirrel has and vice versa...and we ONLY see a male and female eagle produce an animal that has its own specified unique set of features. We don't see it produce a trunk or tusks. The same thing with squirrels.

A human evolving from a basal ape ancestor wouldn't be the case. The human has every major feature the basal ape has and more. Granted, minor features can get lost, like fur or a tail.

Common designer.

I repeat, an elephant has everything the first organism has and more. The first organism doesn't have anything the elephant doesn't have, therefor, it's not a different kind. Rather, the elephant is a vary advanced version of the first organism, as is every other organism.

Thus, an animal (the very first living and breathing organism), produced a different kind of animal (modern day elephant). That is what happened. In fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened on naturalism.

Wow, okay. You know, I don't think we really need to understand Newtonian Physics or Engineering to send man to The Moon. I'm sure we could have just have done it on a whim and would have gotten the job done. Hey, I bet I don't need to know **** about chemistry. Let me mix a bunch of random substances together anyway. I'm sure it'll be safe. Hold my beer.

Oh, you need someone to give you a heart transplant? I know this great guy! He doesn't know **** about medical science, but he's REALLY good at acting like he does. Also, he can make a fine plate of lasagna, which has nothing to do with medical science, but that of course doesn't matter. So who cares?!

Dogs produce dogs, cats-cats, fish-fish :beach:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hey, you provide some brainless entertainment and we are willing to play along. It’s all good.

I will provide the brainless entertainment on here, and your sister will provide the topless entertainment at my house j/k

Another instance of an highly polished ignorance halo blinding you to the facts. Who is that dumb that they actually fall for your “kind” argument anymore—if anyone outside the creationist lobby ever did?

The whole "kind" thing is very simplistic, actually. But the problem is, you people are so used to the technical bio-babble that once it comes to simple thinking, you can't take it. It is very simple...as I said numerous times on here; If you go to a pet store and you ask "can you take me to the dog section", and you are taken to the "bird" section, you will DEFINITELY know the difference between the "kinds" then, now wouldn't you?

Just in case you are still confused “kind” is a meaningless designation in science.

Evolution is meaningless in science too. Science is supposed to be based on observation and experiment, and you've never observed macroevolution, nor have you ever conducted an experiment at which you could predict when these voodoo changes will ever occur. You are relying on faith..the unseen...presuppositions. But there isn't any evidence for these voodoo changes. And your response is "It takes so long for these changes to occur", which is the biggest con since...ever.

We are actually pretty specific with our nomenclature… and kind is just a meaningless word in that context.

Yeah, ok.

Ah, yes! This is where you display your non-grasp of evolution and science in general. Funny how you bible bullies always act as if your non-comprehension of scientific discovery disproves said science.
No reptile ever changed into a bird.

Ohhh so the archaeopteryx thing was full crap, right? Hey, I agree...no reptile ever changed to into a bird...but I guess some of your evolution partners on here didn't get the memo.

The ignorance and perfidy displayed by your heroes Ham and Hovind are not proof that god exists either, but that does not stop you from making some pretty asinine statements at times. Still, in the spirit of displaying good will to all mankind I let you look at that link dealing with scientific reasons why DNA points toward macroevolution. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

What if I provided you a link which is titled "30+ Reasons why Evolution is a Lie"?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well then, since it hasn't been observed, then we should presume it to be false right? After all... That is what you said.

No, I said that because macroevolution is supposed to be part of SCIENCE, then I expect to see an observation that hints it. I don't. I have more evidence that supports my religion than you do which supports macroevolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That statement would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that both animals/people tend to look similar to whatever they descended from. That is why looks are important.

Again, this isn't remotely an issue. All that's required is for something to reproduce something that looks slightly different than what it is. Imagine, in your head, a eurkaryote and an elephant, then imagine a vast expanse of time between them. Now imagine the eukaryote producing a slightly different eukaryote that looks very, very, very slightly more like an elephant than the previous one. Then imagine that slightly different eukaryote producing another, slightly different eukaryote that looks, again, very, very, very slightly more like an elephant than it did. Repeat this about ten million or so times in your head until the line between the eukaryote and the elephant is bridged. When you look at it this way, you see that nothing has to produce anything that looks vastly different, only very slight variations. The point is that these variations build up over time, and produce more dramatic variations - but each individual generation still looks like what came before it.

Thus, an animal (the very first living and breathing organism), produced a different kind of animal (modern day elephant). That is what happened. In fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened on naturalism.

How hard is this for you to grasp? The elephant is a result of variations of everything that came before it, but it still belongs in the same species, family, order and domain as all the forms that preceded it. Nothing produced "another kind of animal" - it reproduced itself with variation.

No, I said that because macroevolution is supposed to be part of SCIENCE, then I expect to see an observation that hints it. I don't.

Then you have either never bothered to look at the fossil record or genetics, or you haven't attempted to understand the science behind them.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I am talking about any specific animal from which the elephant generated.

There isn't one. Whatever the elephant evolved from, the elephant is still a variation of that thing.

Organisms become more basic as you go back in time.

The common ancestor of an elephant and a flower is the basal eukaryote. Both are still a variation of an eukaryote.

That statement would be fine and dandy if it weren't for the fact that both animals/people tend to look similar to whatever they descended from. That is why looks are important.

Let's not forget that, as individual, we start out as embryos that hardly look human, and before that, we start out unicellular.

In fact, embryological development is a short summary of the evolutionary history of the clade which the organism belongs to. That's why human embryos start out with gills and later develop lungs. It's why the reptilian brain in humans develops before the higher functioning parts, like the cortex. It's why when frogs first hatch, they are tadpoles which are basically fish. It's why unhatched birds have dinosaur fingers before it develops into a wing. Dolphins have small hindlegs for a brief period in their embryological development. Did you even know all of this?

This is consistent across the animal kingdom.

Oh so the first organisms weighed tons of pounds with big floppy ears, tusks, and trunks? Oh, I didn't know that.

Read what I said again. The first organism has no unique features. The elephant has everything the first organism has and more. As with all other life.

"Very advanced". That is the theory, of course. You can call it "very advanced" all day long, but where is the observation and the link to get from the very first organisms and a dang elephant.

Genetics, embryology, homology. Take your pick.

Exactly? You just said it; Eagles have a large collection of unique features that a squirrel has and vice versa...and we ONLY see a male and female eagle produce an animal that has its own specified unique set of features. We don't see it produce a trunk or tusks. The same thing with squirrels.

Whatever an elephant descended from, it has everything it has as well as unique features. But the ancestor won't have major unique features that the elephant won't have.

Common designer.

So for ***** and giggle, this common designer decided to planet fossils of transitional forms between basal apes and humans?

As well as give us both similar genetic signatures and ERV markers? Chimps and humans would not have the same ERVs in the same exact genetic location if we didn't have a common ancestor.

ERVs come from viruses that plant genetic information in the DNA of organisms in a RANDOM location. There's billions of possible locations the information could land. There's practically no chance humans and chimps could share these in the same exact genetic location without being related.

That on top of a smooth transition of fossils and there's a common designer that did all of this to try and trick us?

Thus, an animal (the very first living and breathing organism), produced a different kind of animal (modern day elephant). That is what happened. In fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened on naturalism.

No it's not. A basal eukaryote is not a unique kind as it has no unique features. It's simply the foundation for more advanced features.

Dogs produce dogs, cats-cats, fish-fish :beach:

Sure, but dogs also produce poddles. Dogs also produce great danes. But great danes don't produce poddles.

Cats produce tigers. Cats produce lions. But tigers don't produce lions.

Same thing with the rest of evolution. Eukaryotes produce plants. Eukaryotes produce animals(including elephants). But plants don't produce animals.

Basic forms can produce variations. But variations can't produce OTHER variations. EVERYTHING evolves from more basic forms.

An eagle is not a basic form of a squirrel or vice versa.

 

[Simurgh]

I will provide the brainless entertainment on here, and your sister will provide the topless entertainment at my house

Ah, we are making a detour into the land of sexist vulgarity. It seems that in spite of the information provided concerning my gender, you assume I am male and that this “your sister” remark has any meaning for me. Little puerile mind games seem to be your thing.

The whole "kind" thing is very simplistic, actually. But the problem is, you people are so used to the technical bio-babble that once it comes to simple thinking, you can't take it. It is very simple...as I said numerous times on here; If you go to a pet store and you ask "can you take me to the dog section", and you are taken to the "bird" section, you will DEFINITELY know the difference between the "kinds" then, now wouldn't you?

That is just the problem with your “kind” thing. It is nothing but a simplistic attempt at explaining a concept that you do not actually seem to grasp—speciation. Since I have dogs and cats, understanding that they are different species is not difficult. I also understand that they are of different kinds, I have the kind of dog and cat that likes nothing more than burrow under the pillow of my bed and pretend they are invisible. That works better for the cat than the dogs—it’s a size thing. Then I have the kind of cat and dog that likes to go cross-species dining. For some reason two of my cats and one of my dogs prefer the other species dry food. So yes, I get the kind thing alright.
There is of course the common ancestor of all modern carnivores, Dormaalocyon latouri (55 mya). Then there are the hyenas who are part of the Felifornia branch which includes cats and also share the same common ancestry as do all carnivores.

Evolution is meaningless in science too. Science is supposed to be based on observation and experiment, and you've never observed macroevolution, nor have you ever conducted an experiment at which you could predict when these voodoo changes will ever occur. You are relying on faith..the unseen...presuppositions. But there isn't any evidence for these voodoo changes. And your response is "It takes so long for these changes to occur", which is the biggest con since...ever.

Yes, there is more than enough evidence that evolution is a viable scientific theory with literally tons of proof being examined, catalogued and reconstructed.
To equate science with faith is just plain ignorance taken to the level of unprecedented absurdity. But that is your playing field, so have fun ignoring reality and cherry picking what you want to believe. You better hope though, that you never need the kind of science that has allowed us to create therapies and drugs from all that science that you consider to be a con. Or will it be different then? Will you accept what DNA analysis has shown, the progress science has made in treatment of genetic conditions and cancer treatments, for example? Or are you going to say, it’s a con and god will fix me so I don’t need all that stuff that science has created.
Somehow, I doubt that you have thought your position through—after all, without science and discovery you would not be using the computer you type on.

Ohhh so the archaeopteryx thing was full crap, right? Hey, I agree...no reptile ever changed to into a bird...but I guess some of your evolution partners on here didn't get the memo.

No, it isn’t it is just a matter of how you try to confuse issues by using vacuous terminology and vocabulary in an attempt to make your statements seem rational. No reptile ever changed into a bird. Birds evolved from reptiles. That is quite a different thing than what you are saying. Evolution occurs over time. The term change, though, means something that happens quickly. And as far as that goes, millions of years of evolution cannot be considered change in the sense you are employing it. I know, that creationist crap you are spouting is simplistic and riddled with factual errors, and at that quite amusing to read at times. Still, if you have no clue as to what you are railing on against, maybe you should not make such statements.

What if I provided you a link which is titled "30+ Reasons why Evolution is a Lie"?

Then I know I am in for a good laugh, because if it follows the level of insight that your anti-evolution rants display, it ought to be some really ridiculous stuff.

 

[Bunyip]

And why not? A cat can't produce a dog..yet a reptile evovled into a bird? Makes no sense.

Of course it makes no sense to you buddy. That is why people keep telling you to go and learn more about it. And no mate - a reptile did not evolve into a bird. Evolution hallens to species, not individuals. No reptile ever evolved into a bird.

My point is not addressed. You don't believe a cat will ever get to the point of producing a dog...yet you believe that an elephant originated from something vastly different than what it is today?? Isn't that kinda the same thing?

All this is about is people trying to teach you what evolution really does mean, and you refusing to listen.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course. What does that have to do with your religion (evolution) being paid for by tax dollars to be taught in school?

Callinf evolution a religion is just silly. Evolutionary biology generates billions of dollars for the economy. Whatever tax payer dollars are contributed to science education are probably about as effective and lucrative an investment as the govt makes.

So as long as it is economically feasible, lets just continue to spread the lies.



True. But again, what does that have to do with your religion (evolution) being paid for by tax dollars to be taught in school?

We teach maths in school as well mate, and geometry. We invest taxpayer dollars in educating children - what is your issue with that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Again, this isn't remotely an issue. All that's required is for something to reproduce something that looks slightly different than what it is.

I've never seen an animal produce an animal that looks "slightly" different than it is. Have you?

Imagine, in your head, a eurkaryote and an elephant, then imagine a vast expanse of time between them.

Yup, once again..."time" is peeking its ugly head in the door. Given enough time, anything can happen, right? That seems to be the logic with evolution.

Now imagine the eukaryote producing a slightly different eukaryote that looks very, very, very slightly more like an elephant than the previous one. Then imagine that slightly different eukaryote producing another, slightly different eukaryote that looks, again, very, very, very slightly more like an elephant than it did. Repeat this about ten million or so times in your head until the line between the eukaryote and the elephant is bridged. When you look at it this way, you see that nothing has to produce anything that looks vastly different, only very slight variations. The point is that these variations build up over time, and produce more dramatic variations - but each individual generation still looks like what came before it

You are describing the theory, not giving evidence for the theory. I can "imagine" two humans giving birth to an alien, the question is...what REASONS to I have to believe that this could have occurred?? What evidence? None.

How hard is this for you to grasp? The elephant is a result of variations of everything that came before it, but it still belongs in the same species, family, order and domain as all the forms that preceded it. Nothing produced "another kind of animal" - it reproduced itself with variation.

Again, that is the theory. It is amazing how the mind works, isn't it? You can think and imagine any kind of crazy thoughts you want to, but that isn't science...that is fantasy.

Then you have either never bothered to look at the fossil record or genetics, or you haven't attempted to understand the science behind them.

The "fossil record" is non-existent, and any similarities in genetics could mean common designer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Callinf evolution a religion is just silly.

Think about it...it is a religion...it relies on the unseen, just like religion (for the most part)...it attempts to explain orgins, just like religion...and it has a bunch of devout followers...just like religion.

If it looks like a duck...

Evolutionary biology generates billions of dollars for the economy. Whatever tax payer dollars are contributed to science education are probably about as effective and lucrative an investment as the govt makes.

Where is the money coming from? I want my religion taught in public schools too.

We teach maths in school as well mate, and geometry. We invest taxpayer dollars in educating children - what is your issue with that?

The problem is when you start teaching about "origins". Regardless of what you teach, someone is going to get ******.

 

[Bunyip]

Think about it...it is a religion...it relies on the unseen, just like religion (for the most part)...it attempts to explain orgins, just like religion...and it has a bunch of devout followers...just like religion.

If it looks like a duck...

That doesn't make sense. The ToE is just a tested and testable explanation of the available evidence. It doesn't explain origins by the way - that is a different hypothesis.

Where is the money coming from? I want my religion taught in public schools too.

Well then you are out of luck. It would be unconstitutional.

The problem is when you start teaching about "origins". Regardless of what you teach, someone is going to get ******.

The ToE doesn't cover origins.

By the way, slight differences between generations CAN be and have been observed, look at a pic of your dad. Imagine those small differences adding up generation by generation, that is how you get from an Australopithecine to a Human.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That doesn't make sense. The ToE is just a tested and testable explanation of the available evidence. It doesn't explain origins by the way - that is a different hypothesis.

It does explain origins..the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...does that title ring a bell, dear evolutionist? lol

Well then you are out of luck. It would be unconstitutional.

No it wouldn't. If a biology teacher that doesn't believe in intelligent design is making a case for naturalism in his classroom, with evolution as the main culprit, he is using that platform as a way to teach HIS religion...which is just as unconstitutional as you say my religion being taught in classrooms are.

The ToE doesn't cover origins.

Again, what is the title of the evolutionists bible? lol

By the way, slight differences between generations CAN be and have been observed, look at a pic of your dad. Imagine those small differences adding up generation by generation, that is how you get from an Australopithecine to a Human.

Why do I have to keep imagining? I want observational evidence...not some Alice in Wonderland fairytale.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There isn't one. Whatever the elephant evolved from, the elephant is still a variation of that thing.

Well, take away the floppy ears, trunk, tusks, and make it a featherweight, that is one hell of a variation, don't you think?

Organisms become more basic as you go back in time.

That is true in some cases, but I don't think so regarding organisms.

The common ancestor of an elephant and a flower is the basal eukaryote. Both are still a variation of an eukaryote.

That is the theory.

Let's not forget that, as individual, we start out as embryos that hardly look human, and before that, we start out unicellular.

In fact, embryological development is a short summary of the evolutionary history of the clade which the organism belongs to. That's why human embryos start out with gills and later develop lungs. It's why the reptilian brain in humans develops before the higher functioning parts, like the cortex. It's why when frogs first hatch, they are tadpoles which are basically fish. It's why unhatched birds have dinosaur fingers before it develops into a wing. Dolphins have small hindlegs for a brief period in their embryological development. Did you even know all of this?

All of those drawings of embryos looking like all of these different organisms were fake. It was distorted. This has been known for a long time, but somehow it still finds it ways in to text books.

Read what I said again. The first organism has no unique features. The elephant has everything the first organism has and more. As with all other life.

So the first organism had tusks?

Genetics, embryology, homology. Take your pick.

Add those three things to the list of the other ingredients that is mixed into the gumbo pot...pour a gallon of time in the pot, and you have yourself a ToE.

Whatever an elephant descended from, it has everything it has as well as unique features. But the ancestor won't have major unique features that the elephant won't have.

And so will a crocodile, right? So both the elephant and the crocodile will have features of the thing that they descended from..which would be the exact same organism?? Bogus.

So for ***** and giggle, this common designer decided to planet fossils of transitional forms between basal apes and humans?

Fossilization is a result of the decaying process...second law of thermodynamics.

As well as give us both similar genetic signatures and ERV markers? Chimps and humans would not have the same ERVs in the same exact genetic location if we didn't have a common ancestor.

If you popped open the hood of any automobile you will see that for the most parts, every vehicle is made up of the same parts, and some vehicles have parts that are in the same exact location as other vehicles, despite the fact that they were made by two different manufacturers..why? Because they both have a blueprint that works...God had a blueprint that works, so he used that same blueprint for humans that he used for other creatures...that is why we are all made up of the same 20 amino acids.

And asking why a person decided to do X instead of Y is getting into personal preference, which we may not have an answer for, even though I gave it my best shot.

ERVs come from viruses that plant genetic information in the DNA of organisms in a RANDOM location. There's billions of possible locations the information could land. There's practically no chance humans and chimps could share these in the same exact genetic location without being related.

Where did the information in the DNA come from in the first place? You believe that a blind and mindless process created all of this specified information..you find that easy to believe...but you find it hard to accept that this so called ERV's are in the same location (which doesn't vary from organisms). Explain to me where DNA came from, and how a blind a mindless process can created this kind of specified complexity first.

That on top of a smooth transition of fossils and there's a common designer that did all of this to try and trick us?

Speak for yourself. It isn't tricking me.

No it's not. A basal eukaryote is not a unique kind as it has no unique features. It's simply the foundation for more advanced features.

So it is the prototype..and you can just freely add whatever features you want as you go, right? Trunk here, tusk there, claw here, hoof there, beak here, snout there, etc.

Sure, but dogs also produce poddles. Dogs also produce great danes. But great danes don't produce poddles.

Because so much genetic information was lost that some animals within the "kind" cannot breed. There is a such thing as being at the "bottom of the gene pool".

Cats produce tigers.

And a tiger is a cat...so a cat is producing a cat.

Cats produce lions.

And a lion is a cat...so a cat is producing a cat.

But tigers don't produce lions.

And Africans don't produce Chinese children either now, do they?

 

[Simurgh]

It does explain origins..the ORIGIN OF SPECIES...does that title ring a bell, dear evolutionist? lol

No it wouldn't. If a biology teacher that doesn't believe in intelligent design is making a case for naturalism in his classroom, with evolution as the main culprit, he is using that platform as a way to teach HIS religion...which is just as unconstitutional as you say my religion being taught in classrooms are.

Again, what is the title of the evolutionists bible? lol

Why do I have to keep imagining? I want observational evidence...not some Alice in Wonderland fairytale.

Are you still insisting that science is a religion? I mean, we all know that you are a bit confused on the religion issue and cannot separate make-belief from reality and all that. But even you ought to be cognizant of the difference between facts and myths.
Biology teachers who are creationists are not what I want around my kids. They should go back to their religious pals and preach their version of fairy tales to those who want to exist in ignorance caused by blind faith and the fear of having to acknowledge that they are nothing special in the greater scheme of things. All that god-made-me-so-I’m-special whining is just annoying.

One more time, in case you’re mind slipped into that creationist fugue you like to occupy: science is not a religion, hence it can be taught without any qualm. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you cherry-pick from science what you can use, so why the hypocrisy? Without science you would not be posting here, and I am sure you never questioned science when you needed the medical field to help you or people you know.
Is your attitude concerning science in general and evolution in particular predicated on your Bible Bullies United membership?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Well, take away the floppy ears, trunk, tusks, and make it a featherweight, that is one hell of a variation, don't you think?

Not to the extant that you think, because I'm aware of the similarities that go beyond looks. You're not.

That is true in some cases, but I don't think so regarding organisms.

Generally speaking, it's true. Occasionally, parts can get lost, but on the grander scale, organisms are more basic earlier in time.

All of those drawings of embryos looking like all of these different organisms were fake. It was distorted. This has been known for a long time, but somehow it still finds it ways in to text books.

Proof?

So the first organism had tusks?

No. The first organism doesn't have everything an elephant has. But the elephant has everything the first organism has.

Same with all modern animals.

And so will a crocodile, right? So both the elephant and the crocodile will have features of the thing that they descended from..which would be the exact same organism?? Bogus.

Not bogus. Despite differences, crocodiles and elephants share characteristics. Endo skeleton, same number of vertebrates, iron based-blood, amniotic eggs, triune part of the brain.

That's their common features which would be present in a common ancestor.

Fossilization is a result of the decaying process...second law of thermodynamics.

I don't see what you're getting at here.

If you popped open the hood of any automobile you will see that for the most parts, every vehicle is made up of the same parts, and some vehicles have parts that are in the same exact location as other vehicles, despite the fact that they were made by two different manufacturers..why? Because they both have a blueprint that works...God had a blueprint that works, so he used that same blueprint for humans that he used for other creatures...that is why we are all made up of the same 20 amino acids.

Except over 90 percent of your genes are useless and don't do a damn thing. And another large percentage of your genes are for ancestral traits like the gene to develop a tail, or teeth genes in chickens and other birds.

And ERVs are useless genetic information planeted there by viruses, not by a god, even if creationism were true.

And asking why a person decided to do X instead of Y is getting into personal preference, which we may not have an answer for, even though I gave it my best shot.

The notion of creationism begs these questions. Why would the fossil record be layed out to make it look like Evolution happened?

Why are there ancestral genes in the genomes such as hind legs in dolphins, or teeth in chickens?

Where did the information in the DNA come from in the first place? You believe that a blind and mindless process created all of this specified information..you find that easy to believe...but you find it hard to accept that this so called ERV's are in the same location (which doesn't vary from organisms). Explain to me where DNA came from, and how a blind a mindless process can created this kind of specified complexity first.

All Evolution needs is a self-replicating system that doesn't make perfect copies. From there, no more intervention is needed.

There's computer programs that do this where once it starts running, no more intervention is needed.

You can argue that god started life. Much like said computer programmer. But once the program is running, Natural Selection takes over in accordance with unchanging laws.

Speak for yourself. It isn't tricking me.

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it is the prototype..and you can just freely add whatever features you want as you go, right? Trunk here, tusk there, claw here, hoof there, beak here, snout there, etc.

All of those features are just motified versions of features that already exist.

Tusks are elongated teeth. Hoof is a modified single toe. A beak is a snout without flesh over it. A bat wing is elongated fingers with skin webbing in between.

Because so much genetic information was lost that some animals within the "kind" cannot breed. There is a such thing as being at the "bottom of the gene pool".

Informations wasn't "lost". It was simply changed.

And a tiger is a cat...so a cat is producing a cat.

An elephant is an eukaryote. So an eukaryote is producing an eukaryote.

And a lion is a cat...so a cat is producing a cat.

A lion is an eukaryote. So an eukaryote is producing an eukaryote.

A monkey is an eukaryote. So an eukaryote is producing an eukaryote.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've never seen an animal produce an animal that looks "slightly" different than it is. Have you?

Yes. In fact, it's observed every time any living thing reproduces. Are you identical to your parents? Are your children identical to you?

Yup, once again..."time" is peeking its ugly head in the door. Given enough time, anything can happen, right? That seems to be the logic with evolution.

Nope. The logic behind evolution is "given enough time, reproduction with variation plus environmental attrition can result is large-scale changes in allele frequency".

You are describing the theory, not giving evidence for the theory. I can "imagine" two humans giving birth to an alien, the question is...what REASONS to I have to believe that this could have occurred?? What evidence? None.

You mean, aside from the fossil record, genetics and observed speciation?

Again, that is the theory. It is amazing how the mind works, isn't it? You can think and imagine any kind of crazy thoughts you want to, but that isn't science...that is fantasy.

You're right. What makes it science is that fact that we can test, demonstrate and even formulate predictions using the theory that are accurate. The facts are what make it science, not the imagination.

The "fossil record" is non-existent, and any similarities in genetics could mean common designer.

To say the fossil record is non-existent is pure ignorance. Here is a starting point:

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And saying "genetics could mean a common designer" is like saying "just because things fall doesn't mean gravity is responsible - it could be God pushing us down". If you think an honest dichotomy can be made between choosing to believe a conclusion which is testable and based on facts versus the invocation of magic, the only reasonable conclusion one can assume is the one based on facts. All evolution requires is for things to reproduce with variation - and this is an observed fact. What your "common designer" requires is for us to believe is magic.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It is amazing how the mind works, isn't it? You can think and imagine any kind of crazy thoughts you want to, but that isn't science...that is fantasy.

Like a magic baby being born in a barn to a virgin woman because a talking snake convinced dirt people to eat a piece of fruit?