Creationists

[Dr.Drock]

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated

Do you consider lions and tigers different species ? How bout the buffalo and cattle ?

How bout the coyote and domestic dog ? How bout a horse and zebra ?

How bout a chimp and ape ?
lions and tigers are both big cats and they can breed with each other the result is called a lyger. technically they are the same species .
the same goes for dogs and coyotes (Coydogs)
horses and zebras also can be bred:HYBRID EQUINES



Equid (horse, donkey, zebra) hybrids are well known and some are bred commercially. The generic term for a zebra hybrid with a horse, pony, donkey or ass is a zebroid. The generic term for a hybrid of a zebra with any type of donkey or ass is a zebrass.

The usual naming convention for hybrids is a "portmanteau word" comprising first part of male parent's name + second part of female parent's name


Father
Mother
Offspring

Donkey (jack)
Horse (mare)
Mule (male), John (male), Molly (female)

Horse
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Hinny

Zebra
Donkey (jenny/jennet)
Zebrass, Zedonk, Zebronkey, Zonkey, Zebadonk, Zebryde, Zenkey (Japan), Hamzab (Israel)

Zebra
Horse
Zorse, Golden zebra, Zebra mule, Zebrule

Zebra
Pony
Zony

Zebra
Shetland Pony
Zetland

Donkey (jack)
Zebra
Zebret

Horse
Zebra
Hebra

PRIMATES (EXCLUDING HUMANS)

In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin noted: "Several members of the family of Lemurs have produced hybrids in the Zoological Gardens."

In the primates, many Gibbons are hard to visually identify and are identified by their song. This has led to hybrids in zoos where the Gibbons were mis-identified. For example, some collections could not distinguish between Javan Gibbons, Lar Gibbons or Hoolocks and their supposedly pure breeding pairs were mixed pairs or hybrids from previous mixed pairs. Agile gibbons have also interbred with these. The offspring were sent to other Gibbon breeders and led to further hybridization in captive Gibbons. Hybrids also occur in wild Gibbons where the ranges overlap. Gibbon/Siamang hybrids have occurred in captivity - a female Siamang produced hybrid "Siabon" offspring on 2 occasions when housed with a male Gibbon; one hybrid survived, the other didn't. Anubis Baboons and Hamadryas Baboons have hybridized in the wild where their ranges meet. Different Macaque species can interbreed. In "The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication" Charles Darwin wrote: "A Macacus, according to Flourens, bred in Paris; and more than one species of this genus has produced young in London, especially the Macacus rhesus, which everywhere shows a special capacity to breed under confinement. Hybrids have been produced both in Paris and London from this same genus." In addition, the Rheboon is a captive-bred Rhesus Macaque/Hamadryas Baboon hybrid with a baboon-like body shape and Macaque-like tail.

Various hybrid monkeys are bred within the pet trade. These include hybrid Capuchins e.g. Tufted (Cebus apella) x Wedge-capped/weeper (C olivaceus); Liontail macaque X Pigtail macaque hybrids and Rhesus x Stumptail hybrids. The Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata) has interbred with the introduced Taiwanese macacque (M cyclopis); the latter has escaped into the wild from private zoos. Among African monkeys, natural hybridization is not uncommon. There numerous field reports of hybrid monkeys and detailed studies of zones where species overlap and hybrids occur. Among the apes, Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans are separate species with anatomical differences, producing sterile hybrids. Hybrid orang utans are genetically weaker lower survival rates pure animals.

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

Garner (1896) wrote that an ape called Mafuca exhibited at Dresden Zoo in 1875 was sometimes described as a cross between chimpanzee and gorilla. Different experts identified her as a chimpanzee or as a young gorilla."It would be difficult to believe that two apes of different species in a wild state would cross, but to believe that two that belonged to different genera would do so is even more illogical. Yerkes (1929) reported the case of adult female Johanna at Lisbon, whom Duckworth (1899) considered an unclassifiable ape intermediate between gorilla and chimpanzee and similar to the “Kulu-Kamba” and Mafuca. Others considered Johanna, who had been a performing ape wit Barnum and Bailey's Circus, to be a gorilla

the reason apes and humans cannot breed is called speciation: (to differentiate into new biological species)in other words our evolutionary paths have diverged.
not because we were created as separate life forms.

No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.

wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
genus:ge·nus noun \ˈjē-nəs, ˈje-\
plural gen·era\ˈje-nə-rə\ also ge·nus·es

Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
thanks for playing!

Who is wrong.

Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers


Cattle species bos taurus:
Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...

American buffalo species is bison.

bison [ˈbaɪsən]
n pl -son
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back


Lions and tigers

Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am

Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
Garter


Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
Location: land of the long white cloud Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm

They're both cats...

-Dannyi_r_e_d
Coral


Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am

No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.

The rest you can look up yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

hardly....as your beliefs

are based on a non quantifiable premise..as is ALL faith.
With no hard evidence to bolster your claim ,there is no validity .

Give up the evidence or else face it your belief is based in faith.

what type of evidence would you like?

The same evidence I asked of Loki,drock,and dragon.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are still saying nothing here in support of your contention that it is mathematically impossible (I'll even do you the kindness of translating that into "extremely unlikely" -- nothing with a statistical probability above zero is literally impossible).

As to what you can compare humans to, obviously the answer is our actual ancestors on the hominid line. But you need to know, going in, the probability that a species comparable to ours (not just ours specifically) could result from such species over time. You actually have a lot of work to do here in order to bolster your case. I don't see you even beginning to do that work. Instead, I see you looking for an easy out, an excuse to reject evolution on any pretext.

,Which is, of course, SOP for creationists.

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

Your definition is not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've already provided proof of the exact opposite being tested and proven in the lab.

Mutations produce new and positive features.

Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.

They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread. Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.

If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.

A definition is not evidence.

 

[daws101]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

Facts and definitions get you nowhere with YWC.

thanks I had a feeling it would be like that.

 

[Dragon]

The same evidence I asked of Loki,drock,and dragon.

And you have yet to clarify what you were asking of any of us, either.

It's impossible to offer evidence for a vague statement that could mean almost anything, or even to know whether or not we believe it's true.

 

[daws101]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

mu·ta·tion [ myoo táysh'n ]
change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.
alteration: the action or process of changing something or of being changed
phonetic change: a phonetic change found in Celtic languages in which the initial consonant of a word changes according to the preceding word
Synonyms: change, alteration, transformation, transmutation, metamorphosis, transfiguration, modification

change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

Your definition is not evidence.

of course it is, it discribes proven observations and tests.
I'll ask again, what short of evidence do you require?

 

[daws101]

Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.

They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread. Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.

If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

bullshit!

 

[daws101]

No they are not the same species look it up,they are of the same family.

wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
genus:ge·nus noun \ˈjē-nəs, ˈje-\
plural gen·era\ˈje-nə-rə\ also ge·nus·es

Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
thanks for playing!

Who is wrong.

Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers


Cattle species bos taurus:
Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...

American buffalo species is bison.

bison [ˈbaɪsən]
n pl -son
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back


Lions and tigers

Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am

Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
Garter


Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
Location: land of the long white cloud Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm

They're both cats...

-Dannyi_r_e_d
Coral


Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am

No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.

The rest you can look up yourself.

thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong again, they are the same species if they were not they could not produce offspring
genus:ge·nus noun \ˈjē-nəs, ˈje-\
plural gen·era\ˈje-nə-rə\ also ge·nus·es

Definition of GENUS
1: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2: a class of objects divided into several subordinate species
thanks for playing!

Who is wrong.

Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers


Cattle species bos taurus:
Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...

American buffalo species is bison.

bison [ˈbaɪsən]
n pl -son
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back


Lions and tigers

Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am

Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
Garter


Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
Location: land of the long white cloud Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm

They're both cats...

-Dannyi_r_e_d
Coral


Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am

No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.

The rest you can look up yourself.

thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution

They are different species but from the same family.

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.

Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.

 

[Dragon]

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere.

Clearly, what you mean by "new feature" is "any feature of a living organism which represents too huge a development to be accounted for by any ONE mutation."

Which is pretty much what I expected: you are presenting a circular argument.

What are you so afraid of that you have to lie in order to try to uphold creationism? You know, lying is a sin, and if you're lying about this you don't actually believe it, and that's not going to protect you from hell.

 

[daws101]

Who is wrong.

Do horses and donkeys belong to same species? - Yahoo! Answers


Cattle species bos taurus:
Web definition cattle: domesticated bovine animals as a group regardless of sex or age; "so many head of cattle"; "wait till the cows...

American buffalo species is bison.

bison [ˈbaɪsən]
n pl -son
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Animals) Also called American bison buffalo a member of the cattle tribe, Bison bison, formerly widely distributed over the prairies of W North America but now confined to reserves and parks, with a massive head, shaggy forequarters, and a humped back


Lions and tigers

Are lions and tigers part of the same species?
by de47 » Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:18 am

Are lions and tigers part of the same speciesde47
Garter


Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:54 am
Location: land of the long white cloud Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by i_r_e_d » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:49 pm

They're both cats...

-Dannyi_r_e_d
Coral


Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Socorro, New Mexico USA Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by alextemplet » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am

No. Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris. They're the same genus but separate species.

The rest you can look up yourself.

thanks already have and you're wrong ! the point you are avoiding is that all of these creatures can produce mix or mutated offspring that by definition is evolution

They are different species but from the same family.

You don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Their offspring came from selective breeding not mutations.

Look at the pictures you see the genetics from both species in the offspring.

talking about not having a clue! the breeding selective or otherwise caused the mutations
what an ass clown. animal breeders match specific animals together to get the mutations (genetic traits) they prefer.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Present these features that are a benefit to the organism and is considered new information.

The only thing you have presented is Micro-adaptations not macro-evolution.

They're in the link I already provided to you specifically in this exact thread. Exact proof of beneficial mutations, that even your bible blogs admit happen.

If this is another one of your threads where you crown yourself victor because you repeat yourself the most, go ahead and do it.

The thing your not understanding a mutation that might provide a benefit to being antibiotic resistence is different then the mutation that would create a new feature like arm and brain and so on.

That's not what the link said, don't ask for proof when the proof you're given you'll just ignore.

It was an experiment in a lab with mice, go back and look.

 

[daws101]

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

 

[LOki]

Mutations are essential to the evolution theory, ...

Not in dispute. No theory of speciation that proposes a causal relationship between genetic material and phenotype can ignore mutation, or say that mutation has only deleterious effect upon genetic information.

There is literally no reason to believe that changes in genotype cannot result in changes in phenotype.

We will play your game if you can point to one mutation producing new features after all that is what your theory needs.

Why does it have to be only one mutation for the notion to be valid?

and speaking of questions you have no intention of ingenuously answering ....

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

There should not be just one but many. But I am being easy by asking for one...

No. You're just being a disingenuous retard.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

this is what your theory requires.

This is a blatant misrepresentation.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Without this evidence you're going by faith.

Utter nonsense.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Remember us speaking of gradualism which is what all evolutnist predicted and is believed.

Yes. I also remeber how I pointed out to you that intellectually dishonest retards like yourself have a penchant for misrepresenting assertions expressing broad generalizations as if they were specific and unqualified assertions.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

The cambrian explosion disproves gradualism because so many complex organisms just suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

No it doesn't. This is just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

That is a major problem for evolutionist.

No, it's not. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the evidence of the Cambrian explosion. That same evidence, however, contradicts both creationism and the global flood fairy tale.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

The cambrian explosion showed that gradual change did not happen .

A lie.

the fossil record shows basic phyla emerged and stayed basically the same showing some variations within the same phylum.

There is no evidence of phyla gradually changing into something new.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind." Does it mean "phylum" too?

Darwin worked under the belief that cells were not complex well we know that was hogwash.

Typical of your intellectual dishonesty, you just made that up from nothing.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Cells are very complex,and cells have to appear fully formed or they would be useless.

Useless as cells I suppose, so, not in contention.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

certain organelles that are necessary for cellular life cannot be formed in gradual steps. The whole organelle must appear fully formed or the cell will not work. some organelles are not just harmful but deadly to the cell if formed in gradual steps.

Ah, irreducible complexity. You are the lolz.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Why is this a problem that cellular life does not conform to evolution ? Is it not how animals supposedly evolved ? because cells are the building blocks to life.

If cellular life is not in harmony with evolution the theory is dead on arrival.

Good thing it's not.

Sorry about your intellectually dishonest retarded superstitious luck.

Also, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Evolutionist depend on genetic mutations to account for changes in species.

Evolutionists do not deny that mutations are changes to the genetic materials that in turn can be expressed...otherwise they could not depend on the fact of reality that genotype leads to phenotype.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA"]YWC--"Huh. This contradicts what I say about evolution so, ... this never happened! Praise Jesus!"[/ame]

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

Genetic mutations must explain and show how organisms changed from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms.To marine life to amphibious life to mammals and so on.

I will Quote Jonathan Wells PhD in Developmental Biology.

--musings of a superstitious retard snipped--​

I'd rather read your superstitious musings:

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

The blind following the blind.

But not superstitious retards following retarded superstitions.

Thank you for admitting to being blind I have never admitted to being a retard.

You don't have to.

 

[Dr Grump]

Loki

You are a glutton for punishment. Why bother? The guy's a kook of the first degree....

 

[LOki]

Loki

You are a glutton for punishment. Why bother? The guy's a kook of the first degree....

Exposing these superstitious douche-bags to themselves and each other is not the least bit punishing for me ... it's like eating potato-chips.