|
Author
|
Topic: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
Message 14 of 238 (589796)
11-04-2010 3:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
11-04-2010 12:18 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: there is no single gene for building an eye. Do you think you could convince Walter Gehring and his group at the University of Basel in Switzerland of that assertion? Especially since the eyless gene has been used to cause eyes to form in the wings of fruit flies as well as the antenna and legs. The Small eye gene has been taken from a mouse and used to cause an eye to develop in a fruitfly. So yes there is information in the DNA that can cause an eye to develop. The question is where did that information come from? The gene can be mutated and cause no eye to appear or be deformed. The human counterpart is called Aniridia. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 12:18 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:24 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 16 of 238 (589808)
11-04-2010 3:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Taq
11-04-2010 3:24 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: The development of the eye involves many, many genes. That is my point. So what happens if the eyeless gene is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the eyeless gene is not placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? What happens if the Small gene from a mouse is placed in the embro in the genes that form the leg of a fruit fly? Is it necessary to input any other genes to get the eye to develop? If not, would all the information needed to cause the eye to develop in the leg of the fruit fly be contained in the eyeless gene or the Small gene? God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:24 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 18 of 238 (589820)
11-04-2010 5:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Jack
11-04-2010 4:23 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Mr Jack,
Mr Jack writes: What happens if you put the gene in a sponge, clam or a jellyfish? I don't know. Has anyone tried that? I do know if you put the eyeless gene or Small gene in the embryo of a fruit fly in the genes responsible for the leg that the leg will have an eye. That has been done. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 11-04-2010 4:23 PM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:44 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 21 of 238 (589829)
11-04-2010 5:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM
|
|
Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi JRTjr,
JRTjr writes: I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ Why should you have to disprove 'Macro-Evolution'? There is no documented evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured. There is no reproducible accounts of 'Macro-Evolution'. The fossil record does not support the assertion that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured. It is known that creatures do change over time. It is then assumed that all the little changes can pile up to be large enough to cause one creature to cease to be that creature and become a totally different creature. To believe that 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place requires faith in a process that has no reproducible evidence. It is based upon assumptions and the belief that it has occured as it is necessary for the theory to be correct. In Message 167 RAZD said to ABO:
RAZD writes: We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past. When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question. I do believe that it would be possible to trace my linage back to the mankind male and female that was created in Genesis 1:27 if the history was available. But modern man did not exist before this mankind. I do believe that two population can become so different they can't interbreed as my horse avatar would be evidence of. I also believe all creatures have a common ancestor except fish which was produced from the water and the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27. Everything else was formed from the ground which would be a common ancestor. In the same message RAZD said:
RAZD writes: 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. This was presented to show that the faith he was talking about is different from the faith I have. He has faith that eventually what he believes will be substantiated by fact. I have faith that eventually my belief that God created everything will be substantiated by fact when I meet God face to face. Now if anyone disagrees with what I have said present verifiable reproducible evidence of an instance of 'Macro-Evolution'. Watch the attacks begin. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM | | JRTjr has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:55 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 22 of 238 (589832)
11-04-2010 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Taq
11-04-2010 5:44 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: In this case, the Hox genes further up the gene cascade are saying "build a leg here", but they turn on the "make an eye here" switch instead. That is what is happening. Again, you are confusing the switch with the circuit. Are you saying the leg does not exist? I understand that the leg has an eye in it where the eyeless gene or the Small gene is placed. If you have evidence to that says different would you please present it. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:44 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:58 PM | | ICANT has not replied | | | Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2010 6:12 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 28 of 238 (589847)
11-04-2010 7:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by Taq
11-04-2010 5:42 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Each of these cell types was ultimately derived from that first, single fertilized ovum that was you. Where did I mention the Aniridia gene being placed in a human leg and it producing an eye? I don't think that has been done yet.
Taq writes: So how do we get all of these different tissue types? Through master control genes that cause a cell lineage to develop into one of the cell types. As I understand human DNA each cell has a double helix of DNA. Each strand has 750 megabits of information, which contains all the information required to construct a human body. If this is wrong please reference the information that states differently.
Taq writes: Such is the case for the eyeless gene and others. Why do the researchers say they can place the eyeless gene in the embryo of the fruit fly in the gene that builds the leg and it produce a functional eye in that leg? I am using information found in SCIENCE VOL. 267 24 MARCH 1995 pp. 1766-1767.
Taq writes: It is like putting a hole in the gas tank of your car and then concluding that the gas tank moves the car because it no longer moves. I think a gas tank and the eyeless gene is two different things and function in two different ways. Some have called the eyless the master gene for the eye as it can construct a functional eye. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:42 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Nij, posted 11-04-2010 8:08 PM | | ICANT has replied | | | Message 60 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 2:59 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 29 of 238 (589855)
11-04-2010 7:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by Taq
11-04-2010 5:55 PM
|
|
Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Evidence please. Do you call your picture evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'? If so it needs much explanation. Now as to why I say modern man did not exist prior to the man created in the image/likeness of God. The oldest known writings are 6800 years old. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 5:55 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 9:26 PM | | ICANT has replied | | | Message 57 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 2:53 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Eye
Hi Parasomnium,
Parasomnium writes: ICANT, the eyeless gene from a mouse inserted into a fruit fly produces an insect eye. The very same mouse gene, when inserted into a spider would produce an arachnid eye. In a mouse it causes a mammal eye to develop. This tells us that other genes must be involved in the development of an eye. I would have thought it would be because they had a common ancestor. Are you sure it would not be because the DNA for the cells in the leg would have all the information necessary for the fruit fly? God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2010 6:40 PM | | Parasomnium has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
Re: Eye
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes: Well since 'the genes that form the leg' is almost as incoherent in terms of developmental biology as your idea that Eyeless is the sole gene responsible for eye development it shard to say. Sorry my presentation is as old as I am. But the eyeless was presented as the sole gene responsible for the eye development in the leg of the fruit fly. According to the information found in SCIENCE VOL. 267 24 MARCH 1995 pp. 1766-1767. I do want to thank you for answering my questions as Taq either refused to answer or did not know the answer.
Wounded King writes: Obviously without any intervention the fly should develop normally. I agree.
Wounded King writes: I assume you mean Pax-6, which was previously called Small eye, the answer is that it similarly induce ectopic fly eyes. That agrees with the information from my source.
Wounded King writes: If you mean do you need to ectopically express other genes then the answer is no, but all the other genes are already contained in the genome. If I understand what you said it was: that had not the eyeless been introduced there would be no eye in the leg. I also understand that since the eyeless was introduced that a operational eye was produced. If I understand you the DNA in the host cell contained all the information necessary to build a ectopic fly eye when trigered by the eyeless. If I got this wrong please correct me. Now the question I have is where did the information to construct the first eye come from? And where did the information to construct the first cell come from?
Wounded King writes: As I said before, the vast majority of the genes and information required are in the genome in every cell of the organism. As I understand it there are very few cells in which the DNA does not contain all the information needed to construct the creature in which the cell exists. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : Add strike through the
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2010 6:24 AM | | ICANT has seen this message but not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 35 of 238 (589880)
11-04-2010 9:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Nij
11-04-2010 8:08 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Nij,
Nij writes: Yes, it is the "master control" gene. Because it controls. Controls what? Might that possibly be "controls the rest of the genes involved in constructing the eye"? I see the eyeless as being the central processor of that process that processes the information in the DNA and instructs the different genes to do their job.
Nij writes: No. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it contains that number, so you have to support it. Would you agree that all human cells except the mature red blood cells contain a complete genome?
Human Genome Project writes: Q. How big is the human genome? The human genome is made up of DNA, which has four different chemical building blocks. These are called bases and abbreviated A, T, C, and G. In the human genome, about 3 billion bases are arranged along the chromosomes in a particular order for each unique individual. To get an idea of the size of the human genome present in each of our cells, consider the following analogy: If the DNA sequence of the human genome were compiled in books, the equivalent of 200 volumes the size of a Manhattan telephone book (at 1000 pages each) would be needed to hold it all. It would take about 9.5 years to read out loud (without stopping) the 3 billion bases in a person's genome sequence. This is calculated on a reading rate of 10 bases per second, equaling 600 bases/minute, 36,000 bases/hour, 864,000 bases/day, 315,360,000 bases/year. Storing all this information is a great challenge to computer experts known as bioinformatics specialists. One million bases (called a megabase and abbreviated Mb) of DNA sequence data is roughly equivalent to 1 megabyte of computer data storage space. Since the human genome is 3 billion base pairs long, 3 gigabytes of computer data storage space are needed to store the entire genome. This includes nucleotide sequence data only and does not include data annotations and other information that can be associated with sequence data. As time goes on, more annotations will be entered as a result of laboratory findings, literature searches, data analyses, personal communications, automated data-analysis programs, and auto annotators. These annotations associated with the sequence data will likely dwarf the amount of storage space actually taken up by the initial 3 billion nucleotide sequence. Of course, that's not much of a surprise because the sequence is merely one starting point for much deeper biological understanding!
Source "To get an idea of the size of the human genome present in each of our cells," The human genome present in each human cell. "Since the human genome is 3 billion base pairs long, 3 gigabytes of computer data storage space are needed to store the entire genome. " 3 gigabytes of computer data storage space needed to store the information in the human genome found in one human cell. Geeze that is equal to over 4 cd's. So you are right I was wrong. So where did that 3 gigabytes of information come from? God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Nij, posted 11-04-2010 8:08 PM | | Nij has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by Nij, posted 11-04-2010 10:22 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 37 of 238 (589884)
11-04-2010 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
11-04-2010 8:21 PM
|
|
Re: But what the hell does an eye have to do with Macro-evolution anyway?
Hi jar,
jar writes: And what the hell would an eye have to do with the topic in the first place? Everything. You have to get that 3 gigabytes of information (according to the Human Genome Project) from a single cell life form that there is no reproducible evidence for, to be able to construct the first human eye. That would take a lot of 'Macro-Evolution', for which there is no reproducible evidence available. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 8:21 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 9:52 PM | | ICANT has not replied | | | Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2010 10:13 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 38 of 238 (589888)
11-04-2010 9:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Coyote
11-04-2010 9:26 PM
|
|
Re: Old writings
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: If you want to discuss this, start a new thread. Maybe you could title it, "Nothing on or in this earth is greater than 6,800 years old." That could be fun! Just as soon as the images you presented is clasified as writings I will change my 6800 years to 13,000 to 14,000 years ago. And yes I would like to see a discussion on the subject but I don't have time right now to host one. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by Coyote, posted 11-04-2010 9:26 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 43 of 238 (589908)
11-04-2010 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-04-2010 10:07 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: You don't understand what is being done, here. In Message 32 I said:
ICANT writes: If I understand what you said it was: that had not the eyeless been introduced there would be no eye in the leg. I also understand that since the eyeless was introduced that a operational eye was produced. If I understand you the DNA in the host cell contained all the information necessary to build a ectopic fly eye when trigered by the eyeless. If I got this wrong please correct me. Now the question I have is where did the information to construct the first eye come from? And where did the information to construct the first cell come from? The eyeless gene was used to cause the eye to develop in the leg. The information (blueprint for that eye) was contained in the DNA in the cell the eyeless was introduced into. Which caused an eye to develop at that location. Had the eyeless not been introduced there would have been no eye developed on the leg. So what is it that I don't understand? In Message 41 you said:
crashfrog writes: The first human being had completely functional, completely fully-formed eyes, which it inherited from its nonhuman ancestors. Yes I believe the first modern human had fully-formed eyes as well as everything else we have today. Because I believe he was created by God in His image/likeness. You on the other hand believe he came from that nonhuman ancestor which you have no reproducible verifiable evidence for. But maybe I am wrong and you do have that evidence. If you do would you share it?
crashfrog writes: New species inherit almost all of their traits from the species from which they descend. Yes like the two horses in my avatar. They can't bred but they are both horses. There is no verifiable reproducible evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'. It is a prediction of the ToE but no evidence is available to validated that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever happened. If you have such information now would be a good time to present it. Then you could invite me to be present when you get your Nobel Prize. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2010 10:07 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 44 of 238 (589909)
11-04-2010 11:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Nij
11-04-2010 10:22 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi Nij,
Nij writes: and you questioned that claim. He made several posts explaining why this was so. I have continued this explanation: one single gene cannot possibly code for an entire eye, because the eye contains more than one type of protein, making it impossible for one gene to do so. You have so far failed to provide anything demonstrating that any of those single genes are responsible for constructing the eye, as opposed to merely being the green flag for a multitude of other genes. Do we agree that all the information necessary to construct an eye is in the DNA of a cell? Do we agree that eventhough that information is there the information cannot create an eye? Do we agree that for the fruit fly to have an eye the eyless gene must tell the cell to produce an eye? Do we agree that for the mouse to have an eye that the Small gene must tell the cell to produce an eye? Do we agree that for the human to have an eye that the Aniridia gene must tell the cell to produce an eye?
Nij writes: "Master control gene" is also a bit of a misnomer. All it does is wave the start flag, then bugger off. The processes are chemical reactions and the only thing they require is the DNA being used to build the protein. I thought the process was a little more complicated than that. I thought the DNA sent the information by mRNA to the ribosome which was translated by the tRNA. The ribosome then carries out the instructions. I could be mistaken and if I am I know I will be corrected.
Nij writes: that your original assertion of 750 megabits is wrong.
I thought I admitted in the message you are replying to in this message that I was wrong by over 3 cd's.
Nij writes: So, do you actually want to make an argument about evolution, No. But I would love to argue with you about 'Macro-Evolution' if you would present verifiable reproducible evidence for such an occurance. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Nij, posted 11-04-2010 10:22 PM | | Nij has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 51 of 238 (590027)
11-05-2010 1:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
11-04-2010 11:50 PM
|
|
Re: Eye
Hi crashfrog,
crashfrog writes: That the eyeless gene is in the normal flies, I thought I said that an eye could not exist without the eyeless. If it can't exist in the leg, or wing without the eyeless, it stands to reason an eye could not exist in the head either without the eyeless. That would mean the eyeless had to be in the portion that becomes the head for the eye to exist. So yes I think I understand that the eyeless exists in the portion that becomes the head.
Your source writes: These previous points are all evidence of macroevolution alone; the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations. This is why scientists call universal common descent the "fact of evolution". As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred; nevertheless, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether Darwinism, Lamarckism (i.e. inheritance of acquired characaters), or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The macroevolutionary conclusion stands, regardless. From the conclusions: " As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred;" You may be satisfied that predictions are evedience of 'Macro-Evolution' but there was no evidence presented that 'Macro-Evolution has ever taken place. When there is no verifiable, reproducible evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has occured the only evidence is "FAITH" which is the same thing I have that God caused everything to begin to exist. Now if you can find just one verifiable, reproducible piece of evidence in those 29 assumptions present your argument.
crashfrog writes: Sevral Nobel Prizes have already been awarded to scientists who have contributed to the overwhelming proof of evolution: Herman Joseph Muller, in 1946, for the discovery of X-ray mutations; Selman Waxman, in 1952 for the discovery of streptomycin; George Beadle, Edward Tatum, and Joshua Lederberg, in 1958, for the discovery of gene regulation of chemical reactions, genetic recombination, and gene structure; Crick, Watson, and Wilkins in 1962 for the discovery of the structure of DNA; Holley, Khorana, and Nierenberg in 1968 for the discovery of the universal codon substitution table; Aber, Nathan, and Smith in 1978 for the discovery of restriction enzymes; Barbara McClintock in 1983 for the discovery of transposons; Lewis, Nusslein-Volhard, and Weischaus in 1995 for the discovery of the means of genetic control of embryonic development; and Blackburn, Greider, and Stozack in 2009 for their discovery of telomeres. I notice the one for verifying, and reproducing 'Macro-Evolution' was missing.
crashfrog writes: At this point the Nobel Committee would sooner give a Nobel Prize for the discovery that the sky is blue than give a prize for new evidence supporting macroevolution, because they don't give out the prize for proving something everybody already knows is true. Can you find me one scientist who knows 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place rather than believes 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place? The person that knows 'Macro-Evolution' has taken place will have the verifiable reproducible evidence of the event taking place. If you have such evidence please present it as you have presented zero evidence so far.
crashfrog writes: Now, with most of your nonsense put aside - there were many points in the posts you've replied to. Are you prepared to respond to any of them, or not? Since I replied to everything except your toilet references if you want to discuss those please start a thread on blueprints and I will be glad to discuss them with you. Here we are supposed to be discussing 'Macro-Evolution', which there is no scientific verifiable, reproducible evidence for and is therefore falsified as a scientific theory. I brought up the eye because for the eye to begin to exist from a single cell life form massive amounts of 'Macro-Evolution' had to occur. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2010 11:50 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2