Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

      ... and can you explain how? Can you explain how throughout the past 1 (one) billion years history record of life on Earth the species haven't 'hybridized' beyond recognition and become like the strains of the viruses - without any taxonomy. Can you explain how the Crocodiles succeed to keep their genetic code crystal clean without any mutations and any gene shuffles ... for a period of 250 million years without becoming birds (250 buillion years is a lot of time, FM - more than you can possibly imagine) ... and how did you come to know that you might be a cousin of the Dinos and you are going to take off from the ground any moment?
     You don't have any - it is not a matter whether irrefutable or not - you don't have any validated evidence about evolution ever happening. All you have is a history record of changes in the DNA sequences and the changes in the morphology associated with it - you don't have any evidences about any evolution. Do you understand that or you will need 'subtitles'? All you have is changes in the biocode and the truth of the matter is that you have no plausible and feasible and sufficiently convincing explanation of that. All you have is only this and nothing else.
     You are bluffing - you don't know how the biocode works, let alone 'mahvelously'. If you knew that you would have beeen able to make auto-implants of any kind ... as a minimum.

there is no fast rule that says all things MUST KEEP EVOLVING. We have many species that, since their first appearances in the geologic record , have maintained ther standard appearances. Dinosaurs lasted for almost 200 million years and merely "budded" into new orders. (Alligators and crocs, and caymans, and garials etc have done the same--Several species of Mega Crocs have gone extinct).
SO WHAT?

The pool of animal species that have lived goes into many BILLIONS. Those that have successfully evolved and not gone extinct are in the neighborhood of 0.00001% .
Our chances of "evolving" are much lower than the probability of extinction.

PS-virus arent even considered living species

How long is a soup year?

This is news to me. I shall begin practicing my take-offs in the AM. I am playing chess right now.


oh, on the contrary, it AL:L depends upon the irrefutability of the evidence so that it can be reproduced , evaluated etc. Can experiment be creted that test the evidence?

Ah yes, irrefutability od quite imposrtnt. (Unlike Dr Behes newest bullshit about Quinine resistance of malarial pathogens and how comples is this asset)


Mahhhvelously is a perfectly acceptable word in AMerican vernacular. You probably weren't even born when the term was used on SNL.

In the simplest evidence of evolving, humans that migrated out from Africa turned out to be white, brown, red, and yellow - with different colored eyes and hairs, and we're talking a period of about 200,000 years.

It appears that I was a wee bit off in my pronouncement of the crocodilians as unchanged through their history. I sent Heralds note to someone who reminded me that the ARchoosaurs, included the dinosaurs and the crocodilians. These split off between them in the Triassic. The first actual crocodilians were actually plant eaters and many ran on two legs. It wnt until the Cretaceous that crocodilians as we now recognize them , were evolved out of the ancient lizard "pool" of Archosaurs. So actually , these present day species (and there are about 30 existing species) didn't appear until the late Cretaceous.

So, indeed, this class remained relatively unchanged (Of course there was the MEGASUCHUS which ws about 55 to 60 ft long) for about 65 million yers.
No biggy but we have to be a bit more specific in saying that thi class remained "unchanged" through its history.

Just imagine how a crocodille morphs into a cow and you see ow absurd the whole thing is!

Now watch for the reactions of the religious evolutionists.

I already know what they are going to say, they are a bit robotic.

I agree, a lizard morphing into a cow IS quite ridiculous.
Whats yer point?

     This is absolutely Jesuit statement - the living matter either evolves ... continuously OR we don't really know and can't explain what is going on. Why this 'rule' of evolution 'not always happening' resembles me the Big Bang 'theory' and its mind-blowing claims that 'the laws of physics are not always applicable'.
     It is not 'many species' - it is all the species ... that maintain their DNA sequences, unless something happens - which something is not necessarily 'evolution through mutations and gene shuffle'.
      ... you cannot actually explain what is going on on this planet ... this it the 'what'.

And yet, the closest living relative of the dugong (sea-cow) is the elephant.

But, without any sort of proof of course

One of the quirkier fates of the evolutionary process is that dissimilar animals are related. Take the elephant, dugong and hyrax: they are descended from a common ancestor albeit millions of years ago. It just shows that close kinship is not a guarantee for similarity and that adaptation to environment may well have been the driving force that shaped their evolutionary journey rather than a genetic blueprint.

http://natureontheedge.com/2012/11/21/related-the-elephant-dugong-and-hyrax/

proof, please, please, please, please!!! There is none!

Deoxyribonucleic acids, of course. No surer way to link cousins.

Ok, well, now, please explain WHY that is proof and how?

The "fossils" of DNA that still reside on the genomes of related animals Is convincing evidence. As I told Herld (who also is a science denier). We can reintroduce reptilian characateristics onto a chicken embryo by turning "on" the fossil DNA that lies on the chickens genome and is exactly the same DNA as is seen in reptiles (with the exception that it is turned "OFF:)
A chicken with teeth and scales is entirely a possibility by merely returning certain genes in chickens genome to action.. All the genes that a chicken inherited from its reptilian ancestors remain in the chickens genome. The specific genes that make a chicken more unique (like specific alleles in te HOX genes) DO NOT reside in a reptiles genome because a reptile was the ancestor and ancestors do not contain the majority of the chickens unique genes.

The use of genes as "Fossils" of discovery of the relationships of descendency among species (like hyraces and elephants and Sirenids is a powerful tool of biological evolution that grows in importance by the year.

SO MUCH SO THAT,
In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences issued this concise statement:

"It Is no longer possible to sustain scientifically, the view that living things DID NOT evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was NOT produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world"

THATS 16 YEARS AGO.
I think Quahog has been given really good arguments by lotsa people to convincingly and factually counter his " religious beliefs" denying most all sciences and evolution in particular. Hes been on at least one other site I found with much the same MO of idiocy he portrays here, and he was slammed over there, so hes just another CREATIONIST troll with a schtick(He asserts that hes NOT a religious zealot , but only uses CREATIONIST arguments). I imagine that he will tire of this site when
Enough people either ignore his idiocy or ridicule his positions where they no longer are useful to whatever position it is he is trying to represent.

Wherever it is you derive your "knowledge of biology" , Id demand your money back, theyre all wrong. Dragonflies go back to the PEnnsylvanian period. Shrimp and Lobsters date to the Jurassic
Wasps and ants have existed pretty much in a similar form since the Mesozoic and certain species of Gastropods and Clams go back unchanged to the Cambrian.

Since much of evolution is about blind adaptation , successful adaptation of a specific form to a long existing environment , blindly confers "fitness" (and the ultimate test , breeding success).

Jesuits know this, why don't you?

As you say it.

authoritary fallacy, I really don't care who says what!
there is still no evidence. not even if a trilliom scientists shout that there is!

SHOW ME!!

THERE IS NONE!!!

I understand that youre kind of "Stuck" with your "no evidence" wailing, but don't you feel like a real shithead when you jut stick your head up your ass and.... oh wait... I suppose you would.

psychology prefaces many discusions about "conspiracy theory proponents" with a group term that is

" Believers in Alternative Realities" .

It seems a GMO controversy plays into evolution. A variety of apples called "Arctic Apples" has a unique gene that retrds the browning of apple skins on the trees. Ive been familiar with the variety in Maine. Ofetn in Maine, we can find "cider apples" which are those really small tart "Arctic"apples that grow in woodland orchards. In mid winter, thee apples can be found frozen and , when thawed, they appear fresh and can be used to cook jellies and even eaten(though I don't recommend them cause they are as tart as vinegar). The gene that retards browning has been "turned off" by centuries of hybridization.
Now, apple groqers have learnt how to "Turn of browning" by reviving an ancestral trait
(Sorta like the transgenes used to revert chickens to their reptilian state)

AINT science wonderful Herald ?