Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

Two individuals but how many sex cells?Coragyps:
A bunch - all of which carry ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO POSSIBLE VERSIONS OF THE GENE IN THE PARENT!John Paul:
The ToE counts on your statement being false. Did you realize that? If all genes remained the same we wouldn't have the change you want us toi believe occured.Coragyps:
Have you never taken 10th-grade biology?John Paul:
Yes, and more....

The bacteria are still bacteria and produce bacteria. The algae is still algae and produce algae. No evolution in either case.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now know enough of micro-biology to know that the genes governing fin development are not the same genes that govern limb development in tetrapods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
Your evidence?John Paul:
Homolgy has been refuted for years. Try reading Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". It is referenced.

It is obvious to me why Linne changed his mind- research & evidence. There is nothing to the contrary. Heck his change went against the basic belief, so it couldn't have been pressure from the church.

They are NOT multi-cellular. They are aggregates of the same type of cell.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is obvious to me why Linne changed his mind- research & evidence. There is nothing to the contrary. Heck his change went against the basic belief, so it couldn't have been pressure from the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei:
Uh huh. So, Linne is supposedly a bible literalist, but decides that humans and chimpanzees belong in the same group (from pure conjecture, I suppose, despite his supposed viewpoint), and then researches back to the bible view? And the church and his peers are supposedly unhappy about going back to a biblical view?John Paul:
The point I made was that he did NOT group them together. Please read what I post without twisting it.

Did you know that Nilsson & Pelger have been refuted?What evidence refutes IC? Please present it. I have seen most and have read the refutations of those.

Stop moving the goalposts. You did not reference anything that is being debated. Provide the cite and I will point that out to you more clearly.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei:
Are you saying that the number of nuclei can't change?John Paul:
There isn't any evidence, observed or experimental, that shows a single-celled organism without a nucleus (prokaryote) can evolve into a single-celled organism with a nucleus (eukaryote). THAT is what I am saying.Where did rhodopsins come from?Ruled out other theories by rejecting them a priori, not because if any evidence.Please go on about these fragile fossils. They only show that gradualism couldn't account for them. No one said that the catastrophe had to occur right on top of these things. What we do know about fossilization says a quick burial is required.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-17-2003]