Chimpanzee-human genetic gap

Because genuine non-Darwinian macroevolution is a fact within kinds.These large populations have never been breached. Darwinists come along and assert their macro must be true based upon whatever degree of micro occurring within the kind.What is your evidence (other than an atheistic need) as to how the barrier is breached ? Answer: the entirely assumed and made up god called Random Mutation.Here are some macro-kinds: mankind, birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles. Because, literally, hundreds and hundreds of artificial animal and plant breeders have never once been able to penetrate the barrier. Darwin knew the barrier existed and immediately withdrew bears morphing into whales in all editions of "Origin" after the first. This left absoulutely no ***reason for being*** evidence that his theory necessitates: transitional, neither an example, and we know he never claimed any evidence of NS. 70 years later Darwinists scrambling to still figure out how nature operates HAD to adopt NS - and I bet at this late date you and most Darwinists have no idea how much actual evidence existed for NS ?I do and I will humiliate evos with this fact in my forth-coming paper.Ray

If you didn't understand the question, it would be better for you to say so, rather than cut and paste some ridiculous screed instead of answering my question.I repeat:

quote:

---

Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations?

---

I just told you that the "barrier" is easily penetrated in small populations. So, assertions that the "barrier has never been penetrated" aren't answers to the question I asked, which I've repeated above. Why don't you answer my question instead of cutting and pasting nonsense? Ah, one more "forth-coming paper" that's going to leave us quaking in our boots, sundered by your intellect. Lysmachus had one of those, too. We've kinda stopped hearing from him.Is it too much to dream that the same be true of you? By all means, hit us with this "paper."

I don't get it. What humans, birds, or reptiles do you think exist that aren't quadrupeds? All humans, birds, and "reptiles" (itself not even a real taxon, much less a "kind") are quadrupeds. The indication of that would be the four limbs that each of these groups of creatures posess.Can't wait for your "upcoming paper." Like in Calvin and Hobbes I expect you to try to convince us that bats are bugs, or some such.

My preceding post was my conclusion. You still don't get it even though you claim to. It means hominid evolution is ridiculous. 5 million years !The Biblical penalty MUST be true - how could you even entertain this nonsense ?Answer: your atheistic needs. It means evos have no choice because Creationism is not an option. Therefore Lewontin's "we take the side of science....absurd constructs" kicks in.IOW, invoking science grants license to accept and create absurdities since the end (falsifying the Creator) justify's the means (absurd constructs).Lewontin is also a Marxist, which means he believes in lying to achieve his atheistic purposes. Ordinary atheist philosophy.The assumption predetermines the conclusion and insulates the conclusion from falsification. This is called arguing in a circle; your mind is already made up. Facts cannot ever jeopardize your belief. In reality, you, like Lewontin, have nothing to do with science as all honest and intelligent people already know. Darwinism is a religion - the bad element of science called Scientism; equivalent to the bad element in religion called the Fundamentalists. RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 01-28-2006 11:06 AM

Those are my own words from my own mind. You are accusing me of plagiarism.Produce your evidence or withdraw. Produce your "cut and paste" plagiarism charge or withdraw. It is apparent you are upset in a irrational manner caused by the inability to refute or engage. Atheist rant.Ray

Absurd nonsense from a confused mind made necessary from the knowledge and backdrop of modern DNA evidence falsfying traditional evolutionary ancestry claims by Darwinian "scientists".Also tantamount to asserting mankind are apes since there is no credible and objective evidence that everyone can plainly see for the most extraordinary claim of all time.http://news.independent.co.uk/...ddle_east/article338230.eceSince we are apes I guess Darwinian "science" must conclude these "apes" were not selected to live ?Ray

Ray, if you'll look, I think you'll find that Linneaus classified all those as quadrupeds, based on their skeletons, about a century before Darwin published.And your link and comments are positively bizarre in this context.

I'm accusing you of not answering my question. For the third time, and then we're done:

quote:

---

Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations?

---

How many limbs does a human have?How many limbs does a bird have?How many limbs does a reptile have? (Even snakes have the vestigal skeletal structures of limbs.)What does the word "quadruped" mean? If you're not talking about birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, then what organisms are you talking about with this term? From what basis do you conclude that your article represents a selectivly meaningful event? Even in evolution, organisms get struck by lightning.

the word you're looking for is "tetrapod."tetrapods are all animals that have four limbs, other than prehensile extensions of the spinal column. quadrupeds are animals that WALK on four legs. humans are bipeds, not quadrupeds. technically, the two literally mean the same thing, "four feet." but they are used differently (even in scientific context).

---

אָרַח

Interesting. Thank you.God only knows what Ray is talking about, of course.

*shrug*

From message #181, Could we have a bit of clarification on these "macro-kinds"? What is the full listing of vertebrate "macro-kinds"? The list above does raise the question of why reptiles aren't quadrupeds. Do amphibians get a mention? Are kangaroos quadrapeds in this system? Where do snakes fit in?Perhaps then such classifications could be tested against the fossil record.

And Crashfrog didn't know this ?This is why I referred to his initial reply as "absurd nonsense"http://EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap -->EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gapRayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 01-28-2006 02:57 PM

Why have you evaded my previous answer ?What you call "large populations" the Bible calls "kinds".Ray