Evolution is not science

quote:

---

Basically, one says, "If this theory is accurate, then we should be able to see this particular phenomenon."

---

Unless a theory is vindicated on the ground and its manifest environmental surrounds [except where such is not possible, which is limited to .o1% of instances] - there is no reason to sanction it. If some sectors say modern humans are 100K years old, and gradually became as of today's humans, fossil imprints, lab testings or academic positations serve no evidence here: these are generic to any other premise, and subject to manipulation and exploitation.Instead, graduated imprints of populations in kind, and corresponding mental prowess outputs - commonly and pervasively across the entire planet - becomes encumbent.

quote:

---

This limited number of bonding sequences is also not affected by copy errors, so this would be part of NI.

​

The numbers of such sequences in any strand of DNA would be changed by any copy error, so this is NOT part of NI.

---

Lol! This negates the ubsurdity of retrovirus residues in dna transmissions, and by default, speciation itself. Selective logic makes casino science.

quote:

---

We can, do, and have put evolution to the test in the laboratory setting and, indeed, in any setting you could probably care to name.

​

There's nothing about evolution that makes it unsuitable for laboratory analysis. Indeed, most of the genetic tools and computers we use to tease out evolutionary relationships are too sensitive to be used anywhere else.

---

I'll settle for a recalled 'name' of a human, pre-6000. Its a reasonable ask, when speech is posited by ToE followers as being 10s of 1000s of years older. I don't even need TWO names - just a oner, and I'll hail you forever. Take your time.

quote:

---

"The forams may not be representative of all organisms, but at least in this group we can actually see evolution happening. We can see transitions from one species to another," Parker said.

---

I don't think so. That they may not be representative of all organasms, means something other than the conclusion derived by Parker.More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions]; that one life form may protrude an extension in a manner which resembles another life form's elsewhere without any direct linkage [both fish and humans have eyes]; or that a life form may be graduating only to adapt its own environs, and thus utilises a feature seen elsewhere in another life form [humans copy traits of other life forms to develop cars and planes].The above anomolies subsist even when the alledged linkages are definitely in the non-absolute and highly exaggerated and elusive category.

quote:

---

In other words, we have evidence from the fossils that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred.

---

Nothing of the sort has in fact occured, nor do we have any 'evidences' whatsoever - even with the retreat to the million years and fossils escapism: when did this prowess cease occuring and why is it not seen today? If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.The premise that the elevation was not altogether direct and linear upto the present time, or that there were uneven twists and turns how the transit elevations [better, destruction] occured - also does not hinder continueing evidence today of a past millions of years away: these would still be evident - everywhere one looks - without exception - based on the same 'continueing process' premise.

quote:

---

This simple element of the science of evolution is ignored by many creationists who deny evolution. Science does NOT limit its focus on the present

---

Not so - the reverse applies. Creationists have been following another science, which says the 'seed' [an outgrowth from the host parentage] is responsible for all transmissions of a life form, including heriditary and immediate skeletal and characterestics imprints: ignored by evolutionists altogether.The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.

I fully agree that facts transcend belief, when there is a controversy or discrepency what is believed. The factor of 'truth' rests on facts, not belief: one cannot 'believe' the sun did not rise yesterday or that it won't rise tomorrow.It is also a fact, that evolution is not a fact but a theory, with less facts to support it than any belief system.

You altogether missed my point. The issue of repro was clearly disregarded in the post I responded to, and I sited it in allignment what is required to evidence evolutionary speciation.If specie transfers occur by factors other than seed fostered repro - then evidence it w/o it; if seed repro is only a partial factor - then site what part of the partial does not belong to the seed, and explain why the partial factor is not represented in all positations made by evolutionists.Also, the notion that creationists do not factor science, facts and empirical determinations is wholly false: there is ample evidence of the seed factor in our midst - w/o resorting to elusive and diabolical casino science; this is compounded by the 'FACT' there is no alternative science to Creationism.Cheers.

quote:

---

Only if you can show other valid conclusions not just make assertions. In any event this assertion alone does not invalidate the fact that the forams do show evolution, nor that evolution itself is wrong, as there are several mechanisms through which evolution occurs.

---

Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.

quote:

---

More probably, than equally, it can mean that the resemblences seen are commonplace and pervasive within life forms [humans resemble a host of other animals and birds in expressionisms and body functions];...

​

False. Taking this position to it's logical conclusion, then your resemblance to your parents is purely coincidental and you could just as likely have come out a giraffe or a gerbil instead of the person you are.

---

Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.

quote:

---

This is true across the board -- every species known is related by hereditary traits that are passed from generation to generation causing resemblance of organisms to parent(s) and hence to grandparents etc, with such changes as occur generally causing more visible change over more generations.

---

There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, which is based on subjective perception only, while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.

quote:

---

False again. Convergent evolution of wings in birds and bats does not falsify evolution because the wings are different.

---

Of coz it can be falsified, and this is a prime area when it will be falsified. Any percieved differences can be due to several other factors, and this methodology is totally deficient in proving its conclusion. Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.

quote:

---

But in no cases are whole features adopted from one species into another across hereditary lines rather than along them.

---

LOL! Tell me about it - you don't want a situation requiring you to actually *PROVE* your premise as does the offspring from a seed!

quote:

---

The octopus eye is not suddenly transferred to a mammal organism, nor are the features of an octopus eye incorporated into the eyes of mammals.

---

Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.

quote:

---

There is no relationship between design as used by humans and what we see in nature, no borrowing of already developed design into totally unrelated objects.

---

Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only. After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?

quote:

---

It has occurred and it still happens every day in fact, as noted above, in all living species. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away.

---

Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.

quote:

---

If it has not ceased and was/is a continual process, then the time factor does not impact. IOW, it would be evidenced last and next friday, and the period gaps would not hinder: that is what a 'continueing process' means. Naturally occuring oxygen production is a continueing process.

​

As is evolution in every generation in every species.

---

I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.

quote:

---

Mathematically, if blue marbles turn to red marbles every 10 days, continually, then we will always see this process in action - even after millions of years. The time factor has no impact in a 'continueing process'; Parker adopted slight of hand casino science here.

​

And yet, unsurprisingly, the evidence as shown by Parker still shows that change in heritable characteristics within populations over time has in fact occurred. Your comment does not change that fact, nor the fact that evolution is still an ongoing process. Denial and hand-waving, calling something "casino science" does not refute the facts nor the conclusions reached from the facts. You need to actually demonstrate that the conclusions are false rather than just make assertions.

---

A re-evaluation is due here too - we seem to have different interpretations of the term 'ongoing process'. This applies to all transmissions every instant, not just a sub-set millions of years ago, or in populations. The seed transmission is an ongoing process!

quote:

---

Your continued use of convoluted sentence structure and irrelevant words does not hide the fact that evolution does occur, is occurring and has occurred, that the evidence of evolution over millions of years is in fact there to be observed, for anyone.

---

You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.

quote:

---

Your "seed" is just as un-defined and un-demonstrated as was your concept of "speech" -- and it is just as irrelevant until you provide some definition whereby its existence can be tested. Just as you have consistently failed to show that human speech has any qualitative difference from speech - the verbal communication of thoughts and feeling - in other animals, you have failed to show there is any qualitative or even quantitative difference between your "seed" and DNA inherited from parent organism(s) from generation to generation. Without any such differentiation you cannot say there is a difference between your alleged system and the process of evolution as we know exists and operates in all species today.

---

There is no problems whatsoever with the premise of a seed: this is a direct and immediate outgrowth from the host parent, aka 'semen' and 'egg', which accounts for all offspring transmissions, including DNA and other micro and macro data. Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: do you need reminding, that there is no proof of speech being prevailent in historical longevity periods - the excuse sited is there was no writings - as if a single 'name' of a human cannot be recalled without it as proof! Nor does a lack of knowing the exact definition reflect a failure in the differences with communication. If anything, the latter only affirms my position: it is precisely because there is a mystery here that the difference cannot be defined; this is not the case with communications of all other life forms, all of which possess the same mechanical organs and features, but display no speech: and you cannot define why this is so because it is a direct contradiction of evolution. The latter is understandable when you decide to examine evolution in terms of speech being different and unique: but there is a mental block here. Neo science is well on the way to becoming a religious science, where tresholds of dogmas cannot be breached.

quote:

---

The fact of evidence for evolution of this factor is thus, and only this:
That it can conduct what is concluded, in the absence of the 'seed' factor.

​

More meaningless babble without definition of "seed" in a way that can be tested and validated. The only purpose of such babble is to appear to say something and hide the denial of reality behind a wall of delusion.

---

More than bable, it is hitting the nail on the head! You cannot perform in the arena outside your selective criteria, and must run away from actual and definitive premise none can question. You should be able to prove your case in all scenarios.

quote:

---

Reductionist analogy: if you want to assert your car was not made by a car maker, then you have to produce cars w/o car makers.

​

No evolutionist so asserts, for this is also just another false analogy. Cars do not reproduce to make other cars, while biological organisms do, so they cannot be compared. With no change in design factories will turn out cars of the same model until they run out of material, and with no intentional change in production processes they will all be the same color and have the same options; accidents that occur from time to time will not be passed on to future cars. In biology today, every day, we see the production of every single living organism from parent stock, complete with hereditary traits that can be passed on to future generations and mutations that show changes from the parent stock: with no additional design or manufacturing input necessary, every generation - and every individual - is different from the previous generation.

---

I never said or inferred cars must reproduce cars - only that a subset [tail-lights] does not mean cars come from birds. The analogy is fine - you just cannot handle real proof demands - when it should be demanded with such pivotal issues.

quote:

---

Fact: evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- occurs in every species alive today.

---

No, it does not - the seed does this w/o a thing called evolution, while evolution cannot do this w/o a thing called the seed factor. That's a fact.

quote:

---

Fact: the fossil and other records of the natural history of life on earth shows change after change with no two individuals being the same. When arranged in time they show a gradual development from ancient life forms to the ones we know today in a pattern that is totally consistent with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and the branching of life forms from common ancestors by speciation.

---

Its not the 'change' factor that is the issue, but what and how that change is derived. A human from africa will start to resemble a chinese in a few generations if his ancestors were transferred to china 500 years ago: this change is not in doubt, and while you allocate this to evolution, it is easier traced to parentage input via the seed over that time period. It confirms my premise - the seed is the impacting factor here. The same result is not forthcoming those 500 years with speciation: zebras won't emulate chinese people. I have already shown, the time factor of millions of years does not impact in an ongoing process either: iow, there is no reason why a zebra won't become a chinese by your criteria.

quote:

---

Nor can one believe that evolution does not occur, nor that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

---

No problem. Those factors are irrelevent here. I never said life did not exist millions of years ago.

quote:

---

Nor can one believe that there is something in human speech that is qualitatively different from speech in other animals,

---

Absolutely speech is different from non-speech communication, and is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of differences possible. The ratio is 1: all life forms.

quote:

---

nor that there is some undefined "seed" that carries something not part of DNA that controls the growth and development of organisms in specific and life in general. This is especially true as all possible sources for "seed" material except hereditary DNA have been invalidated by scientific studies.

---

Of course there is more than just dna in repro via the seed: it is everything, including skeletal and mental imprints, and bar none. It altogether makes evolution superfluous: you have not stated what a seed transmission lacks?

quote:

---

show me the facts to support creation.

---

There are un-ending facts here, and not a single contradiction. The reverse is the case with evolution: it does not and cannot prove itself as the originator of the universe and life, specially so when it relies wholly on an already existing entity, and then claims to be responsible for it!Creationism makes assertions. If evolution is directed as its dis-proofing, then evolution has to prove itself, or else disprove creationism: this is not the case, and there is no other way of asserting a premise here. IOW, creationism cannot be disproved, nor can evolution prove its replacement factor. Until this situation changes, creationism stands undented, without it being emperically provable: because there is no empirical antithesis. The distorion of these facts and its logic and coherence, is a poor distortion of science. Resting on improvables is not the mark of science.

quote:

---

The ToE doesn't apply to the origin of life, more the origin of the Universe.
The ToE doesn't apply until life first arrived on the scene.

---

Yes it does apply, and it is a false mindset which condones this lie. ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began. The rest of ToE addicts have no choice but to go where ToE's finger is pointing, like blind sheep, settling into perhaps the most unscientific debacle ever labeled as science: 'IT JUST HAPPENED' - how does that pass as science?

quote:

---

Your argument is with Cosmology and Chemistry, not Biology.

---

Another falsehood, designed to deflect and confound. The erroneous biology deflection is unavoidably connected to life and the universe [cosmology, chemistry]; one cannot subscribe to a biological premise of life, and play dumb blonde about life origins or universe origins. The naivety display is not credible here, and why not admits it boldly?

quote:

---

So, what are the facts that support creation?

​

Start a list.

---

Sure, and you start your own adjacently, instead of hiding behind false and contrived deflections?LIST! There is no mystery or deflection here, and it is open to all minds to reflect and deliberate.Absolutely I see both creationism and monotheism as scientific premises. This does not mean they have to align with any other scientific premises of the day - but that they are logic based, with a cause & effect, and a patterned sequence which includes the pivotal factors relevant to the universe origins. Here, creationism and monotheism are one scientific premise - which has been cast against a host of other prevailing scenarios - from divine pharaohs & emperors, head-bashing Hellenist deities, flat earth - to ToE. Today, the premise of creationism and monotheism is still debated in forums, while all other premises, all once equally held as fact and truth same as is ToE today, have all but vanished. And its reason has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with the advent of science or ToE.Now anyone talking universe origins [Creation], and requires a list, which hopefully the challenger will likewise produce his own, must start with what he regards as 1; first; primordial in the preamble - and it has to be in context and relevant to the universe origins. The first thing in genesis' creation, nominates the overall status of the universe being described, without which no other preamble can stand.The List.1. The first thing on the list is that the universe is 'FINITE' - it had a BEGINNING ['In the begging'].This is stated as the first 'fact'. It applies only to the universe origins, the verse concluding in 'CREATED THE HEAVENS [GALAXIES] AND THE EARTH'. Yes/no? Your counter whether the uni is or is not finite!2. The cause is given as by a Creator force, that at one time, nothing save for the creator existed [In the beginning Gd']. There is no proof or evidence given - which is fully credible, when it is contemplated. If we ever claim to find an equation or theory of a Creator, we can be assured we are wrong. How a car works does not substitute for the car maker: the car cannot know this factor. Nor does science know.The above are indispensable background factors, and fully required contextually and scientifically, which genesis is supplying: but ToE does not. The texts now move on to a focus on the earth - again contextually correct, but what would be out of context without the background to earth: a blatant lacking in ToE, which starts in mid-point, and makes assumptions how it began by retrospective assumptions it never clarified, and without nominating any background to ToE. This is a blatant deficiency in ToE, and not satisfied that it does not say anything to its background. The cosmology/chemistry deflection is a joke, and a surprise it is not realized by evolutionists.3. The next on the list is the perpetration of order in void. This is like the ingredients of a cake: each has to be prepared from the mush of the earth and made into formed and cultivated ingredients. Here, we can say there is the emergence of laws in the as yet lawless realm. When we discover some of these laws, we refer to them as scientific equations. 'Pi' would have come from this point, as it is a constant in the universe, independent of and precedent of life and science, and would fall into the preparatory phase of the universe structures. Science later acknowledged pi - but it did not create it; same with gravity and other science equations.The next factor is that a Creator force performed the creation. This does not mean that anyone has to agree with it, to deem it logical or scientific; it remains nonetheless a scientific, sequenced and patterned premise, based on its context of creation of the universe, and stands so because there is no alternative or replacement to it.3. Next, that NOTHING whatsoever can be known about the creator voluntarily. Proof or disproof does not apply here, and cause & effect remains its scientific premise. It is vindicated by what it says: no one can deny it and prove their denial, making it a sufficiently credible premise, and still within the boundary of logic and science: if something cannot be proven, it does not mean it is wrong or illogical; if it cannot be disproved - it remains a credible premise until disproved.4. That the act of creating, namely its activation, was triggered by a word ['The Lrd *said* ], using the instrument of Light. This too is not an unscientific premise: all things we know of are derived by humans via the word, which represents thought/will/action; [will ] - exactly how a home builder builds a home. It is not unscientific that the universe before humans emerged was created by the word - when we know that humans do this with everything they created, including the wheel, the pyramids, cars, planes and pcs. First came the thought, then the blueprints, followed by the action. Nothing mythical or without vindication here.There is some scientific variance whether light is a form of energy, and came later. Nonetheless, genesis is talking of a pre-sunlight [the texts], and is signifying a triggering factor. Light, which triggers life and energy on this planet, is a fine candidate for this declared purpose. The pre-sun light of genesis was pre-luminosity [the text], meaning it existed epochs before the sun, and what is being said here is - the sun could not produce light unless light pre-existed the stars. here, the stars could make light vision friendly to humans, by photonising it.There is no scientific anomaly here, it is just another scientific premise, and one which predates the coining of the term.5. The pattern and sequence order continues, with the critical factor of 'separation' of what was connected and enmeshed, e.g.: light and darkness were rendered separate entities, as with day/night, water/landmass, male/female. This separation factor is pivotal, else nothing could be differentiated, nor could life exist. This is referred to as 'the setting of the table for the guests' metaphor - meaning prior to the emergence of life on this planet, there is a preparatory facility. The metaphor of preparing the table, so to speak, is an indispensable factor - else life could not exist.6. We see at this point, that genesis goes on to list all the life forms, after a background scenario, which includes light and separation factors of the elements. The chronological emergence of the life forms are 100% spot on, described in categories of their primary factors, namely these kinds of life form categories are: vegetation [all forms, including shrubs, herbs, etc]; water based kind [including bacteria and virus, referred to as 'swarms']; air borne kinds; land based kind [including mammals and all creeping things and insects]; human kind as the final species. The last kind is differentiated by speech, which poses a stumbling block potential for ToE.Included in Genesis' creation chapter are premises which again cannot be disputed, but can pose answers to life origins. This includes that all life began as dual-gendered in their first appearance, and that each life form is equipped to reproduce its own kind - requiring no outside assistance, and to continue the life cycle of that kind.The above is an unofficial, ad hock listing of genesis' creation chapter. It culminates in a rest day on the 7th day [meaning 'creation', not the Creator, was rested/ceased]. This turns the subject to humanity, after the background of where the universe, the earth and life come from - because the rest of the books are directed at humanity. Its a scientifically based document, with genesis containing the world's oldest and most accurate calendar, based on the solar, lunar and earth movements - the only one able to forecast seseasonal patterns [a scientific doc], and when examined properly - that there is no other reading of it than that the earth is a moving sphere [its a scientific doc]. It was medieval Europe, with its Hellenist incline, which made the earth being described as anything but flat - as a charge of heresy, with a mandated death penalty.Is Genesis science? Where did science come from!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If you disagree, then show me a definition of Biological Evolution from any Biology textbook or scientific source that includes the origin of life or of the Universe.

---

As I said, it supports the origins of life by retrospective inference, with no option of any other understandings: it posits a principle, that life origins are aligned with no cause, and of its own. It points the finger with a sign, ONE WAY ONLY. Here, you have a causeless effect, matched with a creator effect. Proof does not apply any side. If one says life can be traced to a virus in a dna, and before that, animated life resulted from inanimate materials, of its own - then it is talking about how life began. It really does.

quote:

---

ToE does not start with life's origin because it is unable to - not because it does not want or intend to; but its doctrines clearly point to a nominated inference how life began.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Please provide a citation to a Biology textbook or scientific source which supports this claim.

---

The one way inference principle applies. Causeless, anti-creationism stems from here. This is fine, but let them prove it - then knock Genesis.This is the standard retort, but it does not change anything: if we use science to find cures, it is not because all of science's notions of the universe or life origins are thereby resolved and correctly known: it is not known.

quote:

---

How is it that any Genetics work has ever been able to be successful, sicne it is based upon the idea of all life having a common ancestor?

---

Science and medicinal cures were active well before we had any such idea. As well, a common denominator is hardly a new observation: all life is on the same planet, and there are few options for life here. If anything, the common denominator premise is first given in Genesis, not ToE, namely by the 'dust' [particles/earthly elements] being the materials for life: it is a word which can apply to all generation's understandings. In the same source as Genesis, the OT is also the first document to list malignancies, and contagious and infectious deseases, along with their ID, treatment and quarantine [leprosy]. Here, medicine was born, and for the first time separated from the occult: medicine is one of the first faculties of imperically based science, and at this time there was no knowledge how life emerged. I wouldn't call it anything less than science, nor can anyone else, solely because it does not have darwin's signature to it, or because it is regarded a theological document. Its still fully scientific and the first reference to medicine, as is the first notion of a finite universe vindicated by science today.

quote:

---

Why couldn't a finite Universe have a natural origin?

---

Because a finite universe cannot be explained without a cause, while an infinite universe need not focus on a cause, only a sub-set inside the infinite sector. IOW, an infinite is more condusive to an anti-creational premise. This is exactly what ToE does: its starting point is after life has emerged, but its directive is how life would have emerged, by virtue of backtracking this principle. As I stated previously, ToE does not know how life began, yet it posits how life keeps emerging every place, then uses this premise to signify life occurs by itself, randomly, with no causation factor: causation is not vested in the process sector.If one asks how life or the universe began, biology is pushed aside: this is the common responsa of many scientists today - after making pronouncements why creationism is baseless: how do they know that, since they are only biologists? You can't have it both ways: the premise of the reasonings is faulty when examined further, and concludes in deflection as its response to pivotal issues upon it.

quote:

---

What is the evidence for a "Creator Force"?

---

If a premise is rejected, then it has to be substantiated. That's how science works - else one never questions any of its assertions, and treats it like a religion. This principle has its parallel in criminal law as well: where's the body? This is not about a premise which says the galaxy of virgo is made of candy, and go disprove it; rather it is about the universe and life emerging, and its order being shown as correct and scientifically presented - but not necessarilly aligned with any particular sciuence preference. The factor of the cause [Creator] is not given as a provable, so this cannot be the deciding factor here. Specially so, when science too cannot prove its own assertions. Its not a refutation.That the opening stat of a finite universe is babblings is a babble in itself. my point was Genesis is not a babble but a scientific document, incorporating all the factors relevent to such a premise. That we do not find equations like MC2 in it does not change it: we find dates, names and places also in the OT: but no maps or calendar alongside as its proof. The same applies with stats which are relevent to science, as with other faculties such as maths and history. The proof is in its stats and specs, whether they are scientific and logical: we have to arrive at this findings by either rejecting a certain stat, or saying yes - it is feasable. That's how it works when proof and disproof is not available.The stats are correct - in its science, maths and history. We now see that the finite aspect of the universe can be vindicated scientifically: its not babble - a word, BTW, which comes from Genesis, namely Babel, which also records the first recorded King [Nimrod] - also not babble in the history faculty.As an adjoinder, there was a debate concerning the emergence of speech endowed humans, and that speech was not part of the communication thread seen in all other life forms. This issue was concluded in Genesis' favour. Why? Because none could offer any proof of speech in contradiction of Genesis' bold and very specific datings. The reasons [silly excuses] why no proof was available from its rejectors are secondary to the fulcrum factor, and these too can be shown as faulty. One of the reasons included that speech being difficult to correct define, made the issue redundent - again a secondary issue, and not condusive to the absence of any speech endowed humans anywhere in geo-history, covering millions of life forms and years to boot.This makes Genesis a viable document for science to address - regardless whether one agrees with it or not; it is still a formidable obstacle for ToE, with no competition elsewhere, and its premises have NOT been disproven. Its not a babble. And all what Genesis says, is couched in the highest form of grammar - a faculty introduced here. It is also the first alphabetical books. What bable are you on about?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry, I just don't have any idea how your responses had anything to do with the questions I asked.

---

Sorry is right. Everything was shown as a premise how the universe originated, in its first written recording, everything was scientifically based and feasable, nothing was negatable, almost every notion devised later by science can be seen as introduced from this point [no place else exists], including that the universe is finite - the first document to declare such [scientific fact today], all discussions on this issue are inclined against/for the factors in genesis' creation chapter - including the premise of evolution, the origin of life forms in their correct chronologically based categories - regarded as 'facts' in ToE, the first insight of a life form in its primal first appearance [the logical premise this was a dual-gendered life], presented in what are the first alphebetical books for a 1000 years therefter, and culminating in the world's most accurate calender - fully active today as the oldest one in existence.I believe you asked me to 'LIST' some facts about the universe origins - which part was not in response to your question? Maybe you can show us how it is: list your facts how the universe was created. You do have these facts, right?

quote:

---

If we apply your "retrospective inference", the study of aerodynamics should be considered invalid because it does not explain where wind comes from, shouldn't it?

---

The difference is, the path in ToE does not equate with how wind moves. While the aero works for a plane, life could not have emerged as per the inter-specie process, when applied retrospectavily by links of growths seen in fossils. There is a missinng link here - that is why we can make planes fly - but we cannot evidence life forming anyplace as per ToE. The other factor here is, the aerodynamics never told us to go millions of years in a time machine and check it out: and if you possess even limited maths, I showed how the million year scenario does not impact, not for life's emergence nor the transit phases of ToE, which makes ToE as a slight of hand science devoid of maths credibility.It is also seen that male/female repro depends on the first life entity possessing both genders, as opposed to independent counter life forms emerging separately but matching each other: have you ever worked out the odds for such - it is scientifically impossible, but not so with the process in genesis ['Male and female created he them'/Gen]? Was genesis wrong by saying life emerged in water too, and 'dust' [basic earthly elements] were its ingredients? Do you dispute the universe is logically and scientifically 'finite', and that repro must have the stated 'seed' factor for all transmission of data in life forms, not addressed in ToE?I see your comparison with aerodynamics posed as a ridicule, but it has no substance or application whatsoever, and no impact on the factors I listed. if anything, it only proves genesis right and negatively impacts on ToE: a life form can emulate an adaptive trait from another life forms, as seen with humans emulating the traits of birds - without any speciation occuring here. Where would you say darwin got his basis for the chronological appearence of life forms: please point where this is first recorded?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate! We may soon see the day when the charge of heresy is proclaimed in all who do not bow to ToE and Ceasar. But mighty Rome is no more.

quote:

---

Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.

​

No you haven't, and you still have not refuted the facts of the forams.

---

My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list. I do not have to refute any items mentioned in ToE; I am only disputing the conclusions derived therefrom, namely principles: these are unscientific, immathemtical, illogical and unevidenced - specially where it conflicts with genesis. You cannot admit it, but with the aspect of speech - you have lost that one - despite all the excuses for not being able to evidence genesis wrong - the easiest thing with regard to communication progressing to speech. Similarly we see, forams don't perform the trick in our midst: tell us all your reasons why not - is it because of an inability to define it?!

quote:

---

Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.

​

It doesn't matter what you call it and you haven't done squat to refute evolutoin yet -- the link from parent to child is just as demonstrable as is descent of living species from common ancestors by DNA -- the "seed" that gets passed from parent to offspring.

---

Of coz I have done more than squat: there is no proof or evidence what is claimed by ToE, and the criteria for such proof does not rely on what a ToE advocate chooses. Parents which pass on a seed, and a virus which leaves an imprint on a fossil, have a problem in their equationalising: they reproduce the traits of the parentage, in realtime, able to reproduce its own kind. This renders all the factors of speciation superfluous. Unless you can perform that trick w/o the seed?

quote:

---

There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, ...

​

But you just said there is: "... an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence ... An offspring is not negatable how it is derived" so you are contradicting yourself already -- a feature common with people who misrepresent the truth.

---

No contradiction. Humans do not resemble virus'; they do their parents. Nor do human offspring deviate and then return as humans: because they reproduce their own kind. And if you find a stray part of a human organ resembling another resting on a fossil, it does not evidence ToE: the entire bases of your arguement!

quote:

---

... while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.

​

You are babbling again -- if you stop trying to sound intelligent you might actually be able to say something meaningful. Try simple words and aim for clarity, you might be surprised at the result.

---

Read again. Comprehension must precede science understanding.

quote:

---

Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.

​

I've seen some ludicrous straw man arguments in my time but this is really devoid of any possible relationship to evolution.

---

It is a principle held in ToE, that each life form begat its traits by its mechanisms being osmosized for another life form. I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.

quote:

---

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits (DNA or "seed") in populations from generation to generation, the only trail is from parent to offspring, which you acknowledge.

---

Better, which you don't acknowledge.

quote:

---

Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.

​

Yet it still invalidates your point. Calling it irrelevant just means you can't deal with it, just as your claim to turn it around is pathetic -- because it's the same argument either way.

---

I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?

quote:

---

Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only.

​

Here you attempt to turn the argument around is even more ludicrous.

---

Is imperical proof criteria different from reality?

quote:

---

After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?

​

Life forms change through mutation and natural selection among other mechanisms. This is happening to all species known today.

---

Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.

quote:

---

Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.

​

Of course. Evolution is an observed fact, it has been observed: species have changed hereditary traits from one generation to another. This is because your "seed" is identical and inseparable from DNA passed from generation to generation as demonstrated by your usage without any differentiation of definition.

---

New traits, aside from skeletal and body design, are inculcated and lodged within the dna, and these come from observation of one life form of another: this is how humans learnt to fly planes - not by virus transmissions of another life form passing into its dna. This is the meaning of the passing on of hereditory traits.

quote:

---

I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.

​

What I mean is what people normally mean by generation, which has nothing to do with nine months or millions of years for humans. Can you really be so ignorant to (1) not know the meaning or (2) can't figure out how to look it up? I really wonder how many creationists are embarrassed to read your posts when you make comments like this. The reason generation is used is because the length of time is different from species to species, while a little rational consideration will show that absolute time is irrelevant to the process of evolution. See if you can figure it out.

---

Exactly, and the reason i never bothered to ask. Anything can be claimed on that basis: a billion years ago [generations!], pigs used to fly in another galaxy. Go check! I know very well what a generation means with humanity, and what you cannot prove, is any speech endowed humans 20,000 years ago: drop all the excuses, and say this is correct! You cannot choose when and how to apply what measures 'generations'.

quote:

---

The seed transmission is an ongoing process!

​

Yep, evolution is an ongoing process, I fully agree.

---

Define 'ongoing'? Does it apply to last friday?

quote:

---

You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.

​

So you have said before, however the essential point that you fail to make is what a single one of those could be and how it is different from evolution. Until you do all you are doing is talking about evolution by a different name so you can fool yourself.

---

I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.

quote:

---

Just as you claim: "seed" == DNA, as I have already said. You have made no distinction of one from the other.

---

It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.

quote:

---

Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: ...

​

Yet the Thread Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind stands at 262 messages without showing any difference in kind, only difference in degree. If you don't regard that as a failure, then perhaps you need to look up the definition of failure.

---

The dif is speech, which you refused as being unique from communications, by virtue of a problem in its definition. The fact is, speech has not been seen elsewhere; while miriad forms of communication are seen everywhere. You then resorted to everything has unique features - thereby nullifying any reality of uniqueness per se. Such semantics does not prove your case, while my premise needs no proof by virtue of its blatancy in real terms. Your kind of semantics can nullify the sun being hot. But science and logic require boundaries to be set what is a sound premise, and when it is strayed from a sound premise.Speech is a unique phenomenon in the universe, and its most powerful trait - speech changed the universe; speech allows humans to conquer the universe. Its not just another dot in an endless thread of other dots, is what Genesis is saying; its not somewhere between virus and zebras' communication dots. There would be no science and ToE but for speech. I agree with genesis.I also respect the daring and bold declaration that speech never existed prior to 6000 years - and all the excuses aside - this is a fact which has not been over-turned, when it aught to have been, long ago, and in millions of available avenues for evidences: it makes genesis an astounding anomoly. That there is a mystery with genesis is blatant: can you give any reasoning why five alphabetical books emerged, in perfectly advanced grammar, without any precedence, from a late coming, small nation, always in wondering and dispersions, and with no emulation by any other sector of humanity for a 1000 years thereafter? I cannot. I respect genesis that it opens with a preamble of the universe before addressing the creator factor and humanity: its good protocol, and a lesson for ToE. I respect the opening of the universe being finite - it is evidenced by what I see, namely the universe is expanding: meaning it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. I hail genesis for providing the most accurate calendar, and giving wise answers which are not even considered in ToE, but fully applicable: that the first of any life form had to be dual-gendered. Then I see that there is a fully equipped biological knowledge of the hidden attributes of life forms, which could not have been known to ancient man: that a pig harbours latent biological traits which are different from all other life forms; so do three other animals in different traits; so do finned and scaled fish hidden in the oceans. Then I see that all the laws which are accepted by the world at large today - come only from this source - exclusively; this says that one who understands correct judiciary laws, which have never been added or subtracted to - must know science too. I see the same with history and geography, and with names and dates in geo-history. I do not see any babbles here - but obviously you do. Mostly, you do not even adress these fulcrum factors!?

quote:

---

Which does not invalidate speech in other animals, the actual issue at hand eh?

---

But you can only say that while possessing speech.

quote:

---

More babble. Other animals use speech - verbal communication of emotion and thoughts - therefore it is not unique to man, not a difference in kind but ONLY in degree.

---

Is writings also a difference in degree from a bird call?

quote:

---

It's a very simple experiment: take any fertilized egg, remove the DNA inside the nucleus, and replace it with DNA from the nucleus of a fertilized egg from another species and that other species will grow.

---

Here you agree with genesis by emulating its premise. It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Genesis is a myth.

---

Which part? Genesis even has the first mythical calendar and the first mythical alphabetical books to prove its myth.

quote:

---

Science comes from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing.

---

Science comes from Genesis. The factors you listed are a verification method for examing any scientific proposition, as with any historical, mathematical or any other assertion. The first scientific stat of the universe is that it is finite, and this comes from Genesis.To be scientific, also means acknowledging what is science and scientific, from observation, hypothesis, Teating & drawing conclusions from the testing - without omissions. Only what is correct can counter a faulty premise, and genesis is the only source which can show ToE as faulty.No one can produce a speech endowed life form older than 6000 years, despite that 60 million year old dinosaurs can be evidenced: must be an anomoly or a strange co-incidence. No one can produce writings, or even a 'name' of a human, or any history per se, prior to genesis' mythical dating challenge. Genesis says all repro and offspring transmissions come via the seed, and able to continue their repro cycle with no help from ToE. These are serious, non-mythical challenges, and ToE has not absolved itself from any of these.The relative importance of facts: Evolution comes from genesis, the first recording of chronological life forms, which says a seed follows its own kind. Trees do not become zebras even after millions of years, and this is provable when one sees the time factor does not impact in an on-going process. Do the maths.

Many examples of 'first' and 'transcendent knowledge' have been shown relating to Genesis, in many categories, including science, maths, history, grammar, alphabetical books, the world's most accurate & oldest calendar - and no example of error or any disproof existing 3,500 years later. When an unscientific attitude is displayed, with no acknowledgement forthcoming, and all is described as myth, it becomes evident that true science cannot be derived from such a dogmatic and fundamentalist mindset anymore, even when it assumes itself as the only science acceptable, even when it cannot see where science itself comes from.It appears large sectors of science oriented peoples have become unscientific, and cannot see outside their own tunnel vision radar. They have positioned all writings as mythical theology, and all as belonging in one green bag, unable anymore to deciphere any existing insight therein. Like the theologies they reject, their attitudes have become another theology instead of science - and can thus only end up in the same green bag of mythical science they reject.The first and most prominent myth is not realising that the theologies they reject as myth, have no connection with genesis, appearing some 2000 years later, and fashioned only on a platform of assuming ownership of a document they at no time had any connection or knowledge of. This blatant, blarring and obvious insight escapes those locked in a tunnel vision. This unscientific attitude does not allow them to percieve any differences in all documents, and not understand how to separate real science from myth anymore, by virtue of their own attitude and lack of insight that Genesis cannot be represented by those who never knew it, and spread their own incorrect interpretations of it. Such a mindset becomes doubly effected when there is a contradiction in their own incorrect notions of science, believed in with the same non-negotiable terms of all theologies. ToE has descendent into a theological, Talibanic science - a first indication it is not science anymore.

quote:

---

ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate!

​

Rational people are unable to respond to babble because it is meaningless, not because there is any merit to it. What is legitimate? Some births are legitimate while others aren't and yet both involve evolution -- so again you use words to appear to say something when it is really meaningless babble. You could just say that rational thought anchored in reality is overtaking old ways of thinking anchored in mythology and fantasy -- do you consider that a bad thing?

---

I dont think so: the term legitimate is hardly limited to child birth or ToE, specially not so in the context it was positioned. The irrationality claim applies to faulty grammar rendering, and is yours. Ever heard of a legitimate defense?

quote:

---

My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list.

​

Which is not a list of alternate explanations for the evolution of forams. All this amounts to is more babble pretending to say something.

---

Babbling can also be described as not seeing where science is on display.

quote:

---

And in order to dispute the conclusions your need to refute them. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the scientific process.

---

I did refute them by showing numerous other reasonings apply than what was concluded in ToE. You did not refute nor acknowledge the first scientific reference to the universe as finite, a premise introduced in genesis.

quote:

---

Denial does not make the evidence disappear nor is it an alternate explanation for the evidence, it is delusion. When you reach a conclusion that the evidence must be false in order to maintain a belief, then you have reached a point where you can believe anything you want to with equal validity.

---

Equally, you show a delusion in not seeing science where it is evidenced. You have not shown any alternate scenario to the universe being finite.

quote:

---

I cannot admit it because that would be an outright lie: the thread clearly shows you complete and total inability to make a single rational point about speech being unique to humans. This topic is not about speech so take your speech babble back to the speech thread and try again.

---

Babble is not being able to disprove by evidence, and resting on excuses resting on semantics only.

quote:

---

Evolution has nothing to do with osmosis of traits from one life form into another. You don't know what evolution is therefore you are incapable of discussing evolution.

---

Speciation is a form of osmosis: both incorporate change and exchange. Its about perspectives.

quote:

---

I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.

​

Which also has nothing to do with evolution.

---

It can - by the princple basis being applied backwards. ToE is not a free floating principle without any foundation: nothing is.

quote:

---

I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?

​

Babble. None of this applies to evolution, never has, never will.

---

Yes, it does. The 'result' best evidences and vindicates what a process is saying. And ToE relies on runaway time periods, qualified with elusive transit twists and turns, which results never vindicates itself in reality: this allows ToE an immunity from evidencing an amoeba or root plant becoming a zebra, even when this is exactly what it is saying when properly examined, and prefers not being asked to evidence itself as does genesis. Here, I pointed out that the time factor is irrelevent, and gave actual examples: the runaway immunity subsequently does not apply. ToE must thus evidence its claims in reality - as does genesis: if the time factor does not apply, the transit phase time factors also do not apply. This means to evidence ToE, a life form evolving into another should be seen as commonplace and pervasively. Pause from ToE an instant, and examine my premise in any reductionist example: I suggested blue marbles turning to red marbles every 10 days, on an on-going basis. The latter must thus be seen at all times occuring in our midst - w/o pause and w/o any other affectations applying.

quote:

---

Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.

​

And the point is totally irrelevant, as it does not in any way deal with evolution, just with your fantasy world buried within your babble that attempts to hide you complete ignorance of the reality of evolution.

---

You introduced the mutation factor. I suggested it is not an evidence of speciation, only a deviation and still fully contained in that kind of life form. I gave an example that a percieved similarity on two life forms can have other reasons than that proposed by ToE.

quote:

---

I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.

​

More babble. I call it babble when you don't deal with the issue and use unusual words in unusual ways as if there was something meaningful said in arguments that are totally irrelevant.

---

I did deal with the issue. It means life forms emulate traits they see elsewhere. Humans are a life form which emulates traits of other life forms: it does not evidence ToE. Humans in africa may become darker skinned by environmental factors - not by those listed in ToE: both, human traits and environmental effectations are examples of an effect independent of ToE claims.

quote:

---

It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.

​

Which does not even begin to refute the fact that DNA has been shown to be where hereditary traits are passed from one generation to the next, so it necessarily contains everything you assign to your yet to be defined "seed" -- thus showing identity between "seed" and DNA.

---

This is not so. It requires ToE to be demonstrated w/o the impact of the seed, irrelevent of the dna factor. This is especially the case if you view the dna as common to both premises is taken. E.g: if you say red marbles turn to blue marbles every 10 days, because of gravity appling to both colored marbles equally, then the gravity factor does not apply to any one marble only as being the source of effectation. The dna has no impact here, and must still be shown to foster the same result: this is not the case, and by your own criteria. In contrast, genesis does not suffer this problem: the seed transmission is uneffected by ToE claims, and thus stands as the operable factor.

quote:

---

... you have failed to define in any way that shows a unique trait for humans, rather than just another difference in degree. All your babble about speech is totally irrelevant to this thread (and any other until you actually step up to the plate on the speech thread).

---

Then take another stat in genesis: that life forms began as a dual-gendered entity. This is not babble but a variant logical and scientific premise: to get blue and red marbles from one original marble, it has to contain both propensity traits. The original seed has to contain a propensity to result in either male or female offsprings. Its not babble.

quote:

---

It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.

​

No, it contradicts (1) what you think ToE is as well as (2) what you think "the seed factor" is. It shows that hereditary traits are carried by DNA and not by anything else in the fertilized egg.

---

If the dna carries hereditory traits, it corresponds with genesis and the host parentage source in an evidential and observable manner, as can be seen in dna evidencing in legal court actions today. But that a human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra, is not as evidential or observable, and has not been accepted or ratified in an open legal court case: why so? In any case, this dna connection corresponds with genesis, and is not a negating factor of it: yet you posit is as such, and accuse me of babble!