Evolution in pieces.

John Paul, The fossil record would be a indication, but cladistics would be evidence which is refutable according to evolutionists, a link is below which provides information on the congruence between cladistics and stratagraphics.

​

(please understand I am a student, I could be wrong, but this is what I have found to be a big foundation for evolutionists)http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdfPersonally, I dont see how shared derived characters supplement anymore then similarites for eukaryotes. So John Paul, I stand at your side in this argument currently, untill deployed otherwise because it seems that there really is no evidences other then imigations which lead to organic evolutions at a metaphoric standpoint.------------------
Thank You
The Elder

NosyNed I have a question, do we have any DNA sampals for species which lived millions of years ago?(added by editLooks like 400,000 years represents the oldest dna samples we have currently. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Most ancient DNA ever?
)
------------------
Thank You
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-17-2003]

Ok NosyNed, Spelling flaw, the word that was ment was "imaginations". This would be defined as the appearence of the fossil record which indicates evolution could have happend, but the fossil record fails to mention the cellular composition of each species This would be military wording for: untill I change my position in the argument from John Pauls position to evolutionists position. This would be defined as the characters which phylogenies use to create a phylogenetic tree dont seem to represent anything other then similarites for eukaryotes. (added by edit -And similarites dont lead to relatedness-)------------------
Thank You
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-17-2003]

The reason I ask is because I believe cladistics is a process which creates relationships for eukaryotes built on the shared derived characters and part of those shared derived characters are dna/amino acids which they would not have any samples from species millions of years ago and without these sampals it is only a assumption that if they inserted more character data (i.e. dna from ancient species millions of years ago) that it would continue with the current universal phylogenetic tree. I was reading at the 29 evidences websight that biologists hypothosis is that if they entered more character data as in ancient character data then it would not change, basically it is an assumption. So it seems that I agree with John Paul still on the mutation leading into big changes problem. We have no evidences of this aspect.------------------
Thank You
The Elder

The only way I can find to answer your question, (which may not be plausable because it seems you want something more specific to genetics) is if I ask you a question.How can you intrepret similarites as relatedness? Come on "Sam" we are not going to play word games tonight, or ever, I just dont do that crap.Can you show me a evoltionary step that would be considered macro-e which can be proven with factual evidence to have led to that point? (disclude speciation events please refer to organ development, unless the speciation event is leading to organ devolopment but you must include the dna chain which shows relatedness just like the chian that shows me being related to my father or my grandfather,etc)To answer your lame question, simple, Prove to me with factual evidence "and not just mere indictions" that unicelled life tranformed into humans. (and please include how it is possible to have to mate to conclude new life as a human but then to have devoloped from a species that duplicates without this process).So for lamen terms, Prove to me before I prove to you, that Unicelled life formes in FACT transformed into Humans, or Apes, or Monkeys, or Whatever, I dont care pick a species of our supposed lineage and PROVE the macro-e without using similarities, and if you must base the development primarly with similarites then show me how just similarites is a factual evidence of each step.------------------
The Elder

Ok, This is a horrible metaphore comparison, but in most states it is against the law to travel on the hwys and in all states you cannot walk through personal properties such as farms, peoples houses,etc because it is tresspassing, you would have to get permission to walk through backyyards and such, but you see I dont think in the theory of evolution, permision is a problem and even if it is then it is an assumption that permision would be given. So I dont think you can travel that distance any other way when walking. So, you cant walk that distance.------------------
The Elder

You would classify me as a student, thats it. When I study I apply this method to all topics: "guilty or incorrect" untill "innocent or correct" as correct. Most people read something and say, yeah that makes since, so they study the specifics and say, yes that backs this up so it must be true, I say hmm lets see whatelse we can find even after seeing the specifics.(added by edit)
My belief is irrelevent when trying to prove the "toe" wrong, you are not trying to prove me wrong we are trying to prove theory of evolution wrong and in trying to prove the "toe" wrong we will see if it is right.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

Ok, Do country roads actually go from St. Louis to Minneapolis? If you are correct then you can find the contry road which leads from St. Louis to Minneapolis and back it up with a websight/map showing the path via country roads. It really is irrelevent but if that example is factual, we must consider the problems that could occur from micro-e to macro-e also and present proof also. The problem is there is no proof which is comparible to a websight/map showing the roads from St. Louis to Minneapolis. So you are able to provide proof for the example but not for the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that mutation cannot lead from unicelled life to man in fact. If mutation can have this much of a change over time, present the proof that mutation can lead from bacteria to man.I want PROOF not indications, not just the fossil record and not just similarites but factual verifiable proof. And if science is based on similarities for the theory of evolution, then it is wrong. I dont care how smart people have been in the past, this shows there ignorance and you are just being a robot following flaw.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

ok, The step from reptile ear to mammel ear, that is un-proven. The only information we have is that it could have happend based on the fossil record.Here is the link:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1You have to scroll down the page a little bit to find it but it is on that page.------------------
The Elder

I want to say for the record if I am wrong, I will fall.------------------
The Elder

Are you saying that it is proven that smaller changes can lead to bigger changes? You also said all of science is unproven, I DONT think that is true, specation is proven.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

Map/Websight that shows evidence please. Honestly I dont want it because I dont care, it is irrelevent and represents an imagery only.------------------
The Elder

Look, physical law would be the same as scientific law metaphorically, when a law does not allow something you cannot there for do it, if you break the law then you get in trouble. With science, evolution follows the less resistant path, so in fact if evolution ran into a law it would not bypass it. Eatherway, being possible or not, possibility does not matter. We are trying to say it did or didn't happen. Mutation leading to man from bacteria is a theory, it is not proven. I dont need to prove that it is wrong, it is a theory it is not proven.Im done with you, I stand where I am, you need to show me evidence that mutation can lead to man from bacteria, if you cannot then shush. Don't respond, you are annoying me with petty arguments.------------------
The Elder

Ok,I read entire post, it seems factual in the metaphorical world. Moving on/skipping so I can respond to whats importent. That seems right, I dont like to assume so I wont agree with small leading to big, Honestly I dont care and I can wait for the correct answer. The most reasonable conclusion could be wrong, commen since or faith is not the way of science. It seems that you recognize that small evolution cannot lead to big-e factually, but you accept that small can lead to big because there is nothing more out there explaining what happend. I ask a question then, if we took away the connection from species which are related to small leading to big evolutionary changes, such as the reptile to mammal ear, and whatever else is out there, what would the imagery look like? I say whatever that looks like is also another conclusion we can come too.------------------
The Elder

If you asked a police officer if you can tresspass after the owner said you cannot do it, the physical barrier would be the police officer. LOLGarbage. Garbage also. If I see that the theory has gaps, I wont believe it, I dont have to prove anything. The gap is their, thus, I dont believe it. Very simple. You have yet filled the gap, and once again you are going on with garbage. SPEAK SOMETHING FACTUAL ABOUT MUTATION LEADING TO MAN FROM BACTERIA.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]