Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

That is called creation not evolution

Whatever dude...got to go for now...

Evolution is so full of double talk and blurred lines its ridiculous. So if an organism starts out fully formed with the systems it needs to survive already fully developed, that is an act of creation not evolution.

The question is; how long does it take a new body part to evolve? It certainly takes longer than the life of a given organism. How does that new body part appear in the next off spring, and the next, and the next until its a full body part?We see in Message 119 how a bad mutation can show up for our viewing. Where are the examples of a mutation producing a useful new feature?

Hi Huntard, I was just wanting to understand how you guys think. I don't agree with your conclusions because I believe everything was created suddenly. It wasn't a hill to fight to the death over for me on that issue.So do you agree with Mr Jack on Message 149?Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

ten4 Mate No I don't hold that position

Hi Meldinoor,Thank you for you very respectful and thoughtful post. I don't have time to respond with feedback right now but I certainly will be picking your brain in the near futureRespectfully,
IC

Right-on my friend, I enjoy talking with you Huntard. No, I never will agree with you but I love learning. I hope you you will be open to my reasons for rejecting the ToE as well.Have to run but will talk with you soon.IC

OK, one more quick one before I run out the door While that is true I would have to start with the fact that I believe the biblical account of God speaking all things into existence in a six day period.. The ToE violates several laws such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of non-contradiction. ie; something from nothing and a design without a designer.Later...

Hi Percy. Thanks for taking the time to share you thoughts with me This is wild speculation with no evidence to support such a claim. If it started with chemicals it should be repeatable with chemicals....or let me guess, those chemicals conveniently no longer exist right?
And how did that "organism" become fully formed? ...just dumb luck at its best I guess.If you guys want to believe such a fairy-tale as all of this that's fine but lets quit calling it science.
It qualifies as a fable and no more. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way Percy. I have great respect for you and I like you but all I am taking away from this is a bunch of double talk and no clear explanations for my previous questions. I feel like I am sitting in on a David Copperfield show or something. ...we don't need to use people as an example. Lets go back when fish hit the land and the skeletal system was in the process of evolving.
I am very unclear how changes show up in each off spring.How does a new bone show up as it is in the process of development? Maybe it would be easier if you pointed me to a web-site that has lots of pictures. Seems like all I ever see and hear are broad generalizations. I am also very unclear about selection pressure. Can you direct me to a source that explains what this "pressure" is, what reads it, and how it directs design please?Respectfully,
IC

Hi Taq, Yes I have. I was taught that bees give birth to bees and birds give birth to birds.The ToE violates this simple law over and over and over again which is all the proof I need that this theory is 100% impossible.Thank you,
IC

Oh, OK. I never got an e-mail notification so I was getting ready to give E.F. Hutton a call then go have coffee with the Maytag repair man. I do feel a little intimidated with scarac. Its no secret I am no biology major but I think its fair to say I can hold my own in the common sense department.I don't care how gradual the change is, eventually you reach a line that has to be crossed where one kind becomes another kind. Its not MY law that says that line cannot be crossed, but never the less THE law says that line cannot be crossed.If we had such a smooth blend from one kind to another that this law was not violated then we wouldn't even be able to tell one kind from another. Commonality on the Genome level is not enough to convince me. The common denominator of coming from a single Creators spoken command can account for the common link we see in biology.Maybe I missed it but did anyone reference a web-site that is rich with pictures of the evolution of the skeletal system after fish hit the land? I'm not interested in broad assertions.Respectfully,
IC

Well Mr. Jack. I never said anything about common sense being a substitute for knowledge first of all. And I don't care what degree's you may have sir. I have said it before and I will say it again.
ToE fails miserably with many common sense tests. The most brilliant of men in history with vast amounts of knowledge for their day were later proven to be dead wrong and not even close.Its all about coming to the right conclusions with the knowledge you have. I think all of you are missing the boat. That's my opinion.Thank you,
IC

I'm trying hard not to laugh without success.I can't even respond to this post without attacking your intelligence so I'll just leave it alone.

Lions and tigers are still within the same kind which is the cat family. Horses and donkeys are of the same family as well.
Lets see you breed a lion with a donkey. That is the line! That is the law I am talking about!!