What Darwin discovered

well, my typing skills don't need any advice from you. Look at it s a test of your intelligence.

The fossil record is chockablock with examples of "derived" species that are united to previous "parent" species by morphology. (I know you thumpers don't want to stipulate to macro evolution but that's defiant ignorance not
Sciientific thought")

Arctic Stickelback fish can be turned off and on into cold tolerant forms (which are morphologically quite different from their parent species). Theres but one gene (in fact its only and SNP, a part of a gene) that is associated with the derived form.

The turning off and on of "fossil genes" is now within our technology and understanding. I imagine that labs all over the world will be recreating mammoths, chicken with teeth, even placoderm fish, etc.
SCience often is unable to do things just at the time you demand it, but theres a long learning curve that e first have to decipher how things actually work before we try to affect changes to biological systems.

When DNA is changed to store information under that process it no longer stores genetic code. You don't understand how computers work, how DNA works and how evolution works.

It may be possible to store information in DNA and still have the DNA function as genetic material but that has not yet been done and once you do that you have a storage system that is constantly subject to change which makes it not a good storage system for long term.

Science has also never shown tectonic plates moving thousands of miles but it's accepted because we see small movements and can easily extrapolate the large movements from it.

I do some volunteer curator work for a science museum and weve taken to doing 3D prints of specific parts of presnt ND DERIVED SPECIES TO ACTUALLY SHOW THE CHANGES THAT accrued over geologic times.
These include the "locking" of early marsupials that entered Australia.
Ive been looking to capture some CT scans of whale fossils from the Eocene to the Pliocene and print out and overlap to "trace" the modern whale skull formation through time as the family became adapted to water .
Weve gotten a larger version of a 3D printer and some folks who will train our staff to run it. Im setting up the information we want and Im thinking of varying the color prints (We hve these lrge loops of multicolored HDPE plastic which is spit out according to the 3D plan matrix.

.

Good point, we also see the magnetic "tracks" left by the movement of plates. In just the same fshion we can see the earlier forms of life
by looking at the genomes of existing forms of , say, birds to reptiles, pr fish to amphibians.
We are now able to do these things in lbs and at present, there are several proposals to resuscitate mammoths by cloning, nd to recreate a "Chickenosaurus"

I get tired of the "no one can count to 1,000,000 because I have never seen anyone count past 10" argument.

You can't accept micro evolution and then argue there is no such thing as macro evolution without making such a ridiculous argument.

that's why Im sure that Thumbsy's never read Darwin or else he'd get the fact that most of Darwin ws about these incremental changes tht pile up over geologic time.
It is funny though.

As he's been told over and over and over again, a line of creatures accumulates tiny, slow improvements over time and people arbitrarily choose various points in the sequence as the dividing line between one species and another.

resuscitate, is when you are banging on a dead persons heart to get it pumping again, thus you can not resuscitate a mammoth by cloning, reanimate perhaps.

Chickenosaurus.................Dude, go watch Jurassic Park again, let us know your favorite parts.

The odd thing that you can not see, is that the person who reanimates life, has just created life from lifelessness........That's what God does, so God is then proven.

Thanks.

You have been told over and over again, that neither you nor anyone else has evidence of this......just an "it happened in a pond one day Daddy" theory.

Billions of lines of chemical code, just wrote themselves in a pond one day.

This is the genesis of evolution.

Weve...................................

Okeedokee,

Logical fallacy much?

I did not bring up the mammoth cloning, however it does demonstrate, if successful, how life can come from lifelessness, and this is what has long been attributed to God.

You said that no mechanism exists for one species to turn into another. This implies that you think evolution says that one creature has a child which is vastly different. It certainly doesn't say that. The theory of evolution says only that there is extremely slow, gradual improvement over time as tiny mutations either propagate through or are edited out of the gene pool. According to the theory of evolution, no creature ever has a child which is more than the tiniest bit different. That is the mechanism. We're talking about slow change over billions of years. Species are merely names men have arbitrarily given to different stages of development. That's the mechanism. If you don't think that's what species are, what do you think they are? Keep misstating evolution as cats giving birth to dogs, but that's not what the theory says.

So, it's implausible that a chemical much simpler than DNA which copies itself could form eventually in the world's oceans from random chemical reactions, but a magical creature is something you have a lot of evidence for? Give me one particle of evidence that a God exists. I dare you to.

All these methods of resuscitation of past species will involve cloning living "Host Species" close enough to the target species. "Chickenoaurus " will be accomplished by jiggering the somatic genomes of living chicken embryos. Turning genes off and on will accomplish what is being proposed. This is already within our capabilities.
We know the gene sequence that controls dentition of reptilian ancestors of the chicken line. We also know several other specific HOX genes that control body structure (wings become dromeaosaurian rms, and tails recover several vertebrae). So they will probably start with freak chickens with reptilian features, not a Velociraptor

You must recall that jurssic Prk was SCience Fiction but , nevertheless, it was on the right track for a 1980 book .
Im not sure we can yet insert replacement genes from other donor species where "dinosaur blood' has been degraded. We don't have those genes from which to copy a suitable replacement and some key changes may have occurred over a long time.

Really? Provide us with the chemical code of this first creature and let's see if it really has billions of lines of code. You make an assumption and then use it to try to disprove a theory.

The smallest bacteriophage has 5386 nucleotides. That means it has less than a million atoms in it.

The bacteria mycoplasma genitalium has 580,070 nucleotide base pairs. Again, it has less than a billion atoms.

Some flatworms have less than 60 million base pairs. Probably less than a billion atoms in the DNA.

I am curious how you think the first creature had billions of base pairs. Your assumption that the first creature had billions of nucleotides is ridiculous.
Here is a list of known genome size for many organisms. There are a lot of them that have less than a billion nucleotides.

Ernst Mayr's last book has a listing of genome sizes and the number of coding genes for the entire ascension of animal and plant life

I forgot to include the link to the database of genome sizes

http://www.genomesize.com/search.php