Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

And this is the point I made yesterday. ToE is so good at blurring the lines.No-one can provide the web-site I asked for because ToE has the keep the lines blurred with extremely broad assertions

This is the exact kind of double talk I have been referring to that frankly I am sick of dealing with.Draw the line wherever the hell you want. If you can't breed one kind of animal with another and that truth is unchangeable then that is a law of biology and a line has been drawn.I can't even believe I have to have an argument of such a no-brainer status with people that have your kind of education....this is just such a grand waste of time I can't give any more energy to it....take care guys, I am over and out. Please don't respond from the reply tab of my post.Thank you,
ICDESIGN

My head was sore of butting up against the stone wall of the EvC yesterday. I would like to make a better closing statement if I could please. Yes. Everything I see has huge gaps and holes. I never see drawings of the step by step progression for the skeletal system bone by bone. Its always, "Here is what it was, and here is what it became". I want to see all the details and here how all the bones formed all the way through the process.Evolution claims changes come as a result of selective pressures. One of the things that strikes me is that changes that would result from these "pressures" happen at such a slow rate, by the time the thousands of years (or more) transpire into the resulting changes everything has drastically changed making the reasons the changes happened void.On the one had you say these changes happen because of the immediate environment yet all change is so extremely slow you can't even point to anything other than Genomes for some type of evidence that it happened.I don't see one shred of evidence that selective pressure along with rm/ns is capable of creating new designs. None.You 'claim' it happened but it is sooo slow we can't show it to you.
That in a nutshell is your argument and I say you lose this debate by way of forfeit.If you ever come up with anything tangible be sure to let us Creationists know won't you?May you some day come to know Christ the Savior,ICDESIGN

..."and back by unpopular demand...heeressss IC" Hi everybody. After looking over round one it became clear that there were several issues that I need to return to and put a spotlight on.
There are important questions asked that were either completely side-stepped with diversionary tactics or glossed over with shallow statements that failed to give a satisfactory explanation.Many things you have said just don't add up or in the case of the following, add up to way too much; By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider the
May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today [2], Koonin
calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with
the following conclusion:The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation
system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper,
are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a
total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides
each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500
nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E
<10-1018.That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros.
Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of
universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can
understand the practical import to be that life by natural proceses in a universe such as
ours to be impossible.OK class lets say it all together...IMPAHHHSIBULL !!Thank you,
IC

Were talking about the very first organism here if you would pay attention Coyote.

NO he isn't; Both Percy and Koonin were talking about 1st life. So you are full of poopoo cahcah

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life.

This is direct from the paper Crashfrog. You do the math and prove the editorial was wrong.The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation
system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper,
are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a
total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides
each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500
nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E
<10-1018.

May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for
Biotechnology Information.Are you saying this is a falsified paper? What do you mean original thought. I never claimed this was MY information.

This is funny. Not only did the impossible happen but it could happen an infinite number of times.Yeah, OK Crashfrog whatever you say. As always, your saying it makes it true.

I see what your saying. I should have credited where I got the article. ten4

OK, moving on... I am curious about this statement. Isn't a fish a complex creature? Wasn't the Ape already complex when we evolved from it?Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.

The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation
system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper,
are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a
total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides
each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500
nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E
<10-1018.This is from the paper. Look it up yourself, I gave you the references.If you guys disagree the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros then post what you come up with.I got it from http://www.intelligent-design-evidence.com/origins

OK, moving on... I am curious about this statement. Isn't a fish a complex creature? Wasn't the Ape already complex when we evolved from it?

I know we have more bones in our feet. I would have to do some research as to the differences from us and Apes.
Just for simplicity lets start back at the fish and go from there.Thanks,
IC