mutations and dependencies

[jinx25]

Until someone has read Darwins 'Origins' they are the mercy of university biology teachers who KNOWINGLY indoctrinate them/evolutionary biology propaganda.

That ncbi article doesn't state that there is no succession. You've only shown that, if there are successions at these major transitions, those successions are difficult to track.
I said "(more or less) gradually" because there is both gradualism and puncuated equilibrium.

You have been psy-oped into thinking the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The very antithesis of science (not laughing at you just the psy-op, its soooo sick, i was brainwashed too though, took a few months of reading the right stuff )

On the other hand, the finding of a bird fossil from the precambrian era would falsify the theory of evolution. You might argue that, even if archeologists found a puzzle piece that didn't fit, they might force it into the puzzle anyway. I know next to nothing about homology, so I can't speak on that any further.

The 'theory' of 'evolution' again is not a 'theory' (not change in gene frequency, or any change in any living thing ever). No it can never be 'falsified' because 1) Its not science to begin with 2) Anything on earth (even absence of evidence as you have illustrated above) can be used as 'evidence' for it

However, genetics provides the test as to whether we are assembling the archeological puzzle pieces correctly or not. For the most part, genetics verifies the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, which suggests that evolutionary biologists are on the right track.

Genetics/the very existence of DNA proves it never happened, thats the sickest part of the whole thing (BILLIONS of functionally sequenced nucletoide base pairs that given a single letter change may kill someone/give them a disease). 2 weeks of solid reading is all it would take if someone wanted to know the TRUTH about origins though the implications may not agree with atheism (there is no problem scientifically with mankind sharing a common ancestor with mankind, its the implications it has on a personal level).

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/gen ... -1003.html

[JackBean]

the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it

Nobody could say that, since it's nonsense.

One mutation could (potentially) kill you, but dozens of others do not. Moreover, our genome is optimized after milions of years of evolution. How much more would you like to optimize it?

What proofs of creation do you have?

[jinx25]

University biology teachers knowingly omit the complete absence of a genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like biochemical pathways (ie krebs, glycolysis, electron transport chain), organ systems (intestines, livers, kidneys, adrenals, etc). Mutations= mistakes. Hospitals are full of people with mutations dying of cancer and other diseases. Think mutations are 'good'? Go stand out in the sun for a few hours on a hot day and get some 'beneficial' mutations or one could stick their head in the microwave and get some 'beneficial' mutations.

What proofs of creation do you have?

The onus of proof is on the claim contrary to 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' AND every observed law of nature in recorded/written history (6,000 years). The fact we are having this conversation right now proves 'evolution' never happened. I did a link to Sanfords book 'Genetic entropy'.

[wildfunguy]

You have been psy-oped into thinking the lack of evidence for something=evidence for it HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I didn't say it was evidence for evolution, just that it didn't falsify the theory. However, you did make a good point. There are points at which the supposed succession becomes difficult to track, which makes the theory more difficult to falsify.

Genetics/the very existence of DNA proves it never happened, thats the sickest part of the whole thing (BILLIONS of functionally sequenced nucletoide base pairs that given a single letter change may kill someone/give them a disease). 2 weeks of solid reading is all it would take if someone wanted to know the TRUTH about origins though the implications may not agree with atheism (there is no problem scientifically with mankind sharing a common ancestor with mankind, its the implications it has on a personal level).

http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/gen ... -1003.html

Then do you have an altertantive explanation as to why genome sequencing results are consistent with inferences based on the fossil record?

Now I will quote one of the linked articles.

bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.

Dr Sanford on http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible

Multicellular organisms aren't genetically homogeneous. A mutating organism will still have some cells that carry more harmful mutations than others. The organism could pass on its beneficial mutation without passing on all of its harmful mutations. On top of that, natural selection is also occurring within our bodies. Within the seminiferous tubules, severely defective cells may simply die off before they can divide (pass on their mutations). Thus the worst mutations will have less chances of being carried all the way to fertilization.

This does imply that cancererous cells would have better chances of passing on their DNA, but keep in mind that cancer has late onset.

[wildfunguy]

That last part was somewhat speculative, so don't take my word for it.
I have been taught that mutated cells often die off.

[jinx25]

The literature for mutation in germ line cells are on the internet. Anyway if someones interested he has a talk on youtube 'Numerical simulation predicts human extinction'. Laterz.