On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

no lie.
you think your doing biological connections in studying fossils but your not.
All your doing is studying casts of former creatures. Then after a geological presumption is accepted that they are from many different ages you then claim that evolution over these ages shows a succession from a-B.
All it shows is a bunch of creatures. If they were buried all at once and simply there was segregation in the burying from different water flows then all ones looking at is a diversity like in the amazon or amongst the cichlid fishes.
The biological conclusions of the fossil record are in fact geological ones. There is no biology going on . Biology is about the biology of a living being. A cast of one is bad enough. but conclusions based on a succession of casts is simply not worthy of the prestige of biological research.

It made the news about the genes for sonar being the same for bats/dolphins.
Flies fly but really are just ground creatures. All insects are.
The author of scripture expects one to understand that being defined by flight is the division. Its not about kinds however.

Well they said genes were the same on important points about sonar for bats and whales etc.
this still is a great point for like mechanism equals like genetic score and so its a later adaptation and its from innate triggers in the body and not wild mutation chances.

The point is that humans show how creatures did these things instantly at some point in the past.
its just obvious. bats simply being instictive creatures took more easily into their body systems what humans only flirt with.
I'm sure the mechanism for bat/whale adaptation , instant, to sonar will be demonstrated one day.
no need for unlikely time to pass by.
Sonar is no big deal.
I think all creatures and man can develop the same ability as bats etc.

Your wrong.
Darwin INSISTED that without the presumptions of geology a reader was wasting his time reading his books on evolution.
Time is essential for the claims of evolution turing a ant into a armidillo.if the fossil record did not show time sequences and so claimed biological sequences evolutionism would hardly have anything to talk about regarding evidence.
Read any school book on the evidences and they emphasive the fossil record as proof.
lets say its bout 55% of the "evidence' for evolution.
The genetic claims are very recent and morphology claims always included the claims of progression from fossils.
I think i'm right here.

The operative word is ONCE. if not alive and stripped down to mere bone/cast of bone one has no biology anymore.
biology is about the glorious biological systems of living life. its not about mere remains from simple bone creations. The creatures are dead because of the ending of biological systems and their complete decay.
You are not doing biology in studying fossils.
You are simply drawing conclusions about former biological systems located in individual creatures.comparing anatomy, by way of fossils, is just comparing a special case of bone material remains. its not biology or zoology .
Why do you think it is?biology demand tools and opportunity to examine actual biological life.
evolution has never done this relative to its great claims.
Casts of skeletons of former life in rock strata claims of progressive time intervals can not invoke the prestige of biologists who deal with life systems before our eyes.
This is a logical flaw of evolution in any claim of using biological evidence.

Yet its not biology. Its just questions about some critter.
Biology is about a serious investigation into actual fantastic living organisms.
It only has the prestige of biological investigation if it actually investigates biological process and results.
Anything to do with fossils is about conclusions of a biological nature without biological investigation.
Its gotta have life tissue/organs/being on it. it can't be about casts of minor bone details.
Biology isn't being done where geology and casts therein are the only things to be studied.
This has been a great flaw of evolution to usurp a actual science's name when all it is but just a historical subject.

The frog makes my case. Whats being dissected is a recently live creature and so its actual biological elements are still here. its not just a bunch of trivial bones.
The glory of biology and the power that evolution tries to say it has to turn a bug into a bigger bug or buffalo is what the prestige of biological research is about. bones are a trivial detail dealing with linited conclusions. certainly nothing to do with the origin of creatures without presumptions first being accepted.
come on.
Biology is about life. nOt a few bones without any life.
in fact when the creature lives i would say bones are not alive like the actual moving organism.
Evolution is not based on biological research but merely on very secondary results of biological processes.
this is why it doesn't prove its case or accept its case is proven false,.
Evolution ain't doing no biology.
most of it is founded on geology, raw anatomy, and today specuilative genetic concepts.Without the geology or the opposition of geology evolution is simply untenable.

bones can tell only details of a living creature. Yet its not telling about the actual biological reality of a creature.
biology is about living things. not teeth and bones.
In these ideas evolution must demonstrate actual use of biology and not mere casts of biological agents.
A picture of a car isn't the same thing as a great machine as the car.

Morphology lines includes living creatures but fossil creatures are the great emphasis when telling everyone evolution explains biology.
To diminish the need of the fossil record, and so a geological point, to justify evolution is not what most people would understand.
Again Darwin insisted that his idea was worthless unless the presumption of geological time and fossils within in it was not first accepted by a rader of his books.
Anyways all evolution eduction is always about the progression of creatures by way of fossils. From big catergories of divisions of life. Primitive to high. Right across the ages with this order or that.
It is a thing to run from where geology has the importance it has in a unrelated subject like biology.
Biology can not be based on a foreign subject for its claims.

The frog thing is a hopping good point for me.
i'm saying that trivial casts of mere bone structures of creatures is not a study in the living life systems that we call biology.
Frogs being dissected is biology as its tissue substance is what is being dissected. if this was not so then in biology class frog bones from semesters past could be brought in boxes with like biological knowledge gleaned from them as a cold slimy one.evolutionism has had a logical flaw in its claims that it is a biological study. The great claims of progression have not been from biology but geology. Evolution may deal with some attempts at some actual biological points but still its about pickaxes and blowing dirt.

Well this was what i read from those who study the dna of these creatures sonar ability. they said there was a connection in its makeup.
I can't get into it. Yet the press reports allow me to say it follows that sonar ability is a late adaption based on common laws of biology triggering innate abilities to adapt mechanisms.
common program and not unlikelyness of mutations and selection.

Mechanis and anatomy are fine to tel details of creatures. Yet its not biology as biology is understood. Biology is about actual living tissue and great complexity thereof. Bones are just what they are. Harden calcium, I think,.
to have the prestige of biology and so to make claims of biological origins and mechanisms thereto one must be dealing in a living machine.
Evolutionary biology is in fact geological musings that make biological assertions.

I think one does summation here.
My part here ended in the subject of how important to evolutionary conclusions was the fossil record. Whereupon I stressed this meant that a biological conclusion was greatly founded on geological conclusions. So I insisted this nullify's the biological claim of evolutionary ideas as biological in research and so prestige.
Everyone saw indedd this as a flaw of evolution and so tried to tell me the fossil/geology was a minor or less matter in the case made for evolution.
Not what I ever saw or read.
They beat a drum about fossils, fossils, fossils, and how it proves evolution was true and how conclusions of the story of biological evolution are discovered.
Darwin himself insisted that without the geological presumptions of great time passing there was no reason to read his books.
AMEN.
his ideas don'r work without the geology and so i say they are not actually biological ideas in the main.
A flaw in the whole structure of evolution has been its non biological foundations. Its been a wrong line of reasoning that hid the lack of biological substance.