A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[Dizredux]

My favorite part was when he tried using the 1st law of thermodynamics to claim that DNA can't mutate

Quotemining the berkely site and then misrepresenting the quote mine came in a close second though.

Not to mention his nonsense about "the law of biogenesis", lol.

He definitely has talent and there were several great ones but I could not pass up the opportunity to use the Princess Bride quote.

Dizredux

 

[Queller]

I have found that the Received Texts or the Textus Receptus which originated from Antioch as the source is more reliable than those source documents originating from Alexandria were poetic licensing & gnostism is known to have existed.

Acts 11:26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch

Secular history reports how plagiarized literatures has been done in Alexandria to verify poetic licensing as well as gnosticism being in the area.

Jesus had testified that the Father said that those that did not love Jesus nor His words would not keep His saying and those that did love His words would.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Jesus prophesied that just as He was persecuted, so will they persecute His disciples by not keeping their sayings as well.

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Alot of omissions have been done to the testimony of the deity of Christ in the NIV. One can still find it in the NIV, but in comparison, it should be telltaling about the source documents at Alexandria was indeed subjected to poetic licensing and gnosticism. They changed it enough to suit their needs as the leaders will use those changed references to support their false teachings in denying the deity of Christ to steer followers away from the word of God in seeking secret knowledge which one can suspect praying & fasting was a means to obtain it by. I do digress....

False teachings abounds and apostasy is across all the denomenational churches wherein hopefully a few are still keeping to the faith, but I am not holding my breath since no church wants to examine themselves in the faith: prove all church traditions by the scripture via reformation..

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.

So if there be any doubt as to the meaning of His words, go before that throne of grace and trust Jesus as your Good Shepherd to give you wisdom in understanding His words as they are kept in the KJV.

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Okay, I guess this is a reason not to use the NIV but why not all the other English translations?

 

[Queller]

Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?

No you don't see. Anything humans evolve into will always be a subspecies of human. Just like anything apes evolved into will always be a sub-group of apes, just as humans are.

That means when a cow is no longer a cow that it cannot reproduce with said cow because it is an entirely different and larger animal.

That isn't talking about the physical size of the animal, it means the taxonomic groups above species level.

Where did you get this line anyway?

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

It's in neither Delphiki's post that you quoted nor in the Berkeley link you posted.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is micro evolution is the law of Bio Genesis whereas macro evolution is only theoritical, is not observed, and cannot be proven.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?

The law of biogenesis says that comlex species, such as flies or modern bacteria, do not emerge from lifeless matter in a matter of a few days. I dont' see how life evolving from a single common ancestor over 3.5 billion years violates that law. Could you explain?

The use of microscopic to prove the existence of macroscopic things is hardly the same thing after all when it involves seeing them whereas we are talking about how the microscopic becomes the macroscopic as in micro evolution will become macroevolution if given enough time.

We can show that macroscopic shapes are made up of microscopic molecules. Same applies to evolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events in the same way that the shape of a rock is the combined interactions of single, microscopic molecules.

That means when a cow is no longer a cow that it cannot reproduce with said cow because it is an entirely different and larger animal.

Entirely different? I can find shared features between cows and humans, so even humans and cows are not entirely different. Perhaps you want to think about that one for a second.

[qutoe]They do oppose each other as your quotes do quite easily, because one can throw out the law of biogenesis if macro evolution is true,[/quote]

We can throw out your misrepresentation of the law of biogenesis since no scientist uses it.

but it is not prove because it is not observed nor proven as easily as the law of Biogenesis is.

Remember the first law of thermodynamics? That nothing can be created out of nothing and nothing can be destroyed? Now apply that to your DNA. No genetic information is going to be added to your DNA to sprout wings.

I remember that the first law of thermodynamics deals with mass and energy, not information. The first law says that you can not create mass and energy from nothing. It says nothing about information.

Not only do you invent your own definition of biogenesis, but you also invent your own definition of thermodynamics.

The rest is just more distortions of science.

 

[Tellastory]

Oh my, are you trying to set a record for the most erroneous facts in a single post? You are doing a good job but those before you have left a legacy of some very high standards for this so you may have a ways to go.


So far my favorite is:
"Impotent" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You might consider looking it up.

Dizredux

Well, I can admit my mistakes on recollection quite well. The crossbreeding between a horse & a donkey is the actual event which produces a mule. That mule cannot reproduce. If that term impotent is not the correct spelling or the actual meaning of cannot reproduce, then sorry about that, but you are side stepping the truth I am conveying here.

Looking the term up, I can see that it is not precisely conveying my meaning of not able to reproduce, whereas sterile does but surely you get the idea and yet you want to jump all over that to side step the obvious fact that crossbreeding produces offsprings that cannot reproduce wherein that should put all theoritical aspect of macroevolution to a stand still, but I can understand that you need to make a big deal about it to avoid the hard fact that macro evolution can never happen.

But I am use to evolutionists bragging about their own intelligence by belittling others without actually adding any information or correction for the progress of the discussion; in spite of what had been shared.

It is obvious to most believers that there can be no discussions with scorners so do not be surprise if we do not engage any more. Yeah.. I am sure you will not be surprise.

 

[Tellastory]

My favorite part was when he tried using the 1st law of thermodynamics to claim that DNA can't mutate

It is a common scientific fact that no genetic information has been observed as being added to a living organism.

And mutation does not involve added genetic information.

Quotemining the berkely site and then misrepresenting the quote mine came in a close second though.

Like the Catholic catechism with their double talk and many words, that quote is simple enough to cite what macro evolution actually is which defers from micro evolution greatly. Yes, they go on about gradual change and with their many words, they make that simple quote not mean what they said it means.

Not to mention his nonsense about "the law of biogenesis", lol.

All I see here is atypical response of no information about how you define those laws in correcting my layman's definition of it.

And all the readers sees that too.

 

[Tellastory]

Okay, I guess this is a reason not to use the NIV but why not all the other English translations?

Most modern Bibles translate from those documents originating from Alexandria same as the NIV did.

The few that claims that they did it the same way as the KJV had done are misleading like the NKJV. Compare Romans 8:26-27 at this link.

Romans 8:26-27 KJV;NKJV - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our - Bible Gateway

The reason why the KJV used "itself" is because the intercessions of the Spirit are unspeakable and thus He cannot utter them or make them even though He has them and so verse 27 is testifying to another Person that knows the mind of the Spirit in how the intercessions of the Spirit's are made known. The identity of this other Person is the One that searches our hearts as scripture will identify in Hebrews 4:12-16 as being the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ which is confirmed in Romans 8:34.

Because many are misled that the Spirit does make these intercessions directly "Himself", they think it is okay to pray to the Holy Spirit and thus failing to see why it goes against other scripture like Jesus being the only Mediator between God & men, the man Christ Jesus, and only He is at that throne of grace for our prayesr to have even access to God the Father Himself which is why the will of God is Jesus being the sole handler of all of our intercessions because when the Father says yes, the Son answers our prayers so that God the Father may be glorified in the Son & be given the thanks in Jesus's name. John 14:13-14

Anyway, this is why I rely solely on the KJV and the Lord Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd had to show me that as keeping to the meaning of His words for us to follow Him by as His disciples.

 

[Tellastory]

No you don't see. Anything humans evolve into will always be a subspecies of human. Just like anything apes evolved into will always be a sub-group of apes, just as humans are.

That isn't talking about the physical size of the animal, it means the taxonomic groups above species level.

I aquaint macro evolution as having extra genetic information that is not present from which it assumingly had sprung from.

It presents a problem when theorists extraopolate a cow to a whale scenario. That would the genetic information is present in the whale that it had legs once, but all they can do is point to mutation which they attribute to having legs once but it is still not found in the DNA which suggests that they are not legs that they are looking at.

They have been building on fossilized sea cows with legs as a link but it could just be an extinct mammal, but evolutionists will not consider it.

Where did you get this line anyway?

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

It's in neither Delphiki's post that you quoted nor in the Berkeley link you posted.

Look again: it is under that first graphic block of bettes, insect, and Arthro....

What is macroevolution?

 

[Dizredux]

Tell

If you are interested in honestly discussing some of what you said I will try but do keep in mind that most these are things we have gone over a thousand time or more, they are not new.

I will discuss, not argue. Let me know.

Dizredux

Tell, I read your next post. Oh well, never mind.

 

[Tellastory]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Talkorigin? How about a science site instead.

The law of biogenesis says that comlex species, such as flies or modern bacteria, do not emerge from lifeless matter in a matter of a few days. I dont' see how life evolving from a single common ancestor over 3.5 billion years violates that law. Could you explain?

If flies and bacteria did not emerge from nothing in a matter of a few days then how can it receive extra genetic information to become something else over 3.5 billion years?

We can show that macroscopic shapes are made up of microscopic molecules. Same applies to evolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events in the same way that the shape of a rock is the combined interactions of single, microscopic molecules.

A series of micro evolution will remain micro evolution.

Entirely different? I can find shared features between cows and humans, so even humans and cows are not entirely different. Perhaps you want to think about that one for a second.

You can find shared features with anything, but that doesn't make them as one & the same or that they share a common ancestor.

Can a man reproduce with a cow? No. Then not really the same.

We can throw out your misrepresentation of the law of biogenesis since no scientist uses it.

It is true that they have modified it from my days in high school to make it not so simple to cite after all, but here it is:

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. The principle that life originates from preexisting life and not from nonliving material.

So similar life can only originate from pre-existing similar life.

I remember that the first law of thermodynamics deals with mass and energy, not information. The first law says that you can not create mass and energy from nothing. It says nothing about information.

What am I talking about? Genetic information. Then that matter of the DNA is not going to come out of nothing to be added to the given DNA. That's teh 1st law of thermodynamics applied to the given DNA which the law of Biogenesis will cite that the given DNA came from pre existing DNA: and not from nothing; hence that given DNA did not get anything extra in its DNA because it came from that same pre existing DNA.

Not only do you invent your own definition of biogenesis, but you also invent your own definition of thermodynamics.

The rest is just more distortions of science.

Not really, but if you keep looking at everything with the evolutionary's point of view, I can understand why in relation to that view, it would be a distortion to you, but yet, I see the laws of science as proving that the evolution theory is actually a false science.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[USincognito]

Well, I can admit my mistakes on recollection quite well. The crossbreeding between a horse & a donkey is the actual event which produces a mule. That mule cannot reproduce. If that term impotent is not the correct spelling or the actual meaning of cannot reproduce, then sorry about that, but you are side stepping the truth I am conveying here.

Since evolution does not occur through hybridization, I have no idea why anyone brings it up in the discussion at all.

 

[USincognito]

It is a common scientific fact that no genetic information has been observed as being added to a living organism.

It is?

And mutation does not involve added genetic information.

Could you please define "genetic information" and provide us a quantifiable metric by which we can determine "added" or "increase", "decrease", "loss", etc.

TYIA.

 

[USincognito]

I aquaint macro evolution as having extra genetic information that is not present from which it assumingly had sprung from.

The word you're looking for is "equate". "Tellastory" does not determine what is, or is not macroevolution. And you're going to need to provide us with that quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic informaiton" before we talk about gains or losses of it.

It presents a problem when theorists extraopolate a cow to a whale scenario. That would the genetic information is present in the whale that it had legs once, but all they can do is point to mutation which they attribute to having legs once but it is still not found in the DNA which suggests that they are not legs that they are looking at.

Huh? Are you talking about Hand2 and Sonic Hedgehog genes?
How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » News » University of Florida

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.

“By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened,” Thewissen said.​

 

[Tellastory]

Tell

If you are interested in honestly discussing some of what you said I will try but do keep in mind that most these are things we have gone over a thousand time or more, they are not new.

I will discuss, not argue. Let me know.

Dizredux

Tell, I read your next post. Oh well, never mind.

Honestly discussing? Why bother replying if you are not going to add to the discussion other than to belittle the poster? If you do not want to argue, you are not doing a good job of it by belittling the poster's intelligence.

So when you want to lead by example of honestly discussing something, do lead by example.

And I doubt you can prove that you went over this with me a thousand times before. Mayhap with every creationist at this site, but if that is your criteria for honestly discussing any topic with anyone, then you should not be replying at all; not even to a newbie. See my point?

But since you have a christian icon, let me ask you this, brother. Do you believe in the global flood? If not, then you should know that there are scripture testifying to it as being real.

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

That is no symbolism being given here but a warning of what is to come in relation to a similar cataclysmic event in the past by which the world was judged.

Jesus said the same warning:

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Now you have a choice: you can be offended because of the word and not believe Jesus nor Peter nor the Bible anymore or... you can believe fallible men with their fallible devices wherein some of them just plain do not want to believe in God to fuel the lie of the evolution theory.

Mark 4:16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Romans 3:4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[Tellastory]

Since evolution does not occur through hybridization, I have no idea why anyone brings it up in the discussion at all.

And yet you can have "micro" evolution per variety within the species, by crossbreeding.

So like as per the evolution theory in respect to what is macro evolution; when a cow has added genetic information to its DNA that it would be another kind as in not a cow, but still be able to reproduce with its former kind, the cow, seeing how they are almost similar, would not the result wind up as sterile still?

Do you still fail to see why it was brought up?

 

[Tellastory]

It is?

If you wish to provide a link to a science site saying otherwise, be my guest. It has not been observed and yet science has been around pretty long time that they should have been able to observe it by now.

Could you please define "genetic information" and provide us a quantifiable metric by which we can determine "added" or "increase", "decrease", "loss", etc.

TYIA.

Hmmm... lessee.... chromosomes.

How many chromosomes do people have? - Genetics Home Reference

Humans have 23 chromosomes.

In comparisons of apes of 24 chromosomes to humans' 23 chromosomes at an evolutinist's site.

Human and Ape Chromosomes

The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs.

If we had evolved from apes: where is our extra chromosomes? Wopuld that not suggest a de evolution rather than macro evolution?

The point is; even if you have one speculated as ascending; where is that chromosome going to come from? Nowhere? From nothing?

Seems the quote verifies that regardless of the different kinds of apes, they all have 24 chromosomes and always will have 24 chromosomes just as a human will always have 23, even though it continues with the assumption that somehow, we had evolved from apes.

Now the point of lions & tigers hybrids results:

Ligers and Incomplete DNA

This site testifies that both lions & tigers have the same amount of chromosomes from which they can produce an offspring, but no explanation is given for it sterility.

The horse and the donkey are a different story: its explanation of meiosis can show why macro evolution can never happen even though they are not saying that, but I am applying it towards that conclusion.

Understanding Genetics

A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.

But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.

They have trouble making sperm or eggs because their chromosomes don't match up well. And, to a lesser extent, because of their chromosome number.

A mule gets 32 horse chromosomes from mom and 31 donkey chromosomes from dad for a total of 63 chromosomes. (A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62).

That above quote explains the problem with the mule or hinny;

The below bold portion of the quote explains the problem with the ligers even though they are not referring to that as an example.

To make a sperm or an egg, cells need to do something called meiosis. The idea behind meiosis is to get one copy of each chromosome into the sperm or egg.

For example, let's focus on chromosome 1. Like I said, we have one from mom and one from dad. At the end of meiosis, the sperm or egg has either mom's or dad's chromosome 1. Not both.

This process requires two things. First, the chromosomes have to look pretty similar, meaning they are about the same size and have the same information. This will have to do with how well they match up during meiosis.

And second, at a later critical stage, there has to be four of each kind of chromosome. Neither of these can happen completely with a mule.
Let's take a closer look at meiosis to see why this is. The first step in meiosis is that all of the chromosomes make copies of themselves. No problem here...a mule cell can pull this off just fine.

So now we have a cell with 63 doubled chromosomes. It is the next step that causes the real problem.

In the next step, all the same chromosomes need to match up in a very particular way. So, the four chromosome 1's all need to line up together. But this can't happen in a mule very well.

Like I said, a donkey and a horse chromosome aren't necessarily similar enough to match up. Add to this the unmatched chromosome and you have a real problem. The chromosomes can't find their partners and this causes the sperm and eggs not to get made.

So this is a big reason for a mule being sterile....

So I don't see macro evolution happening at all. Sterilty would be the definite result.

 

[Tellastory]

The word you're looking for is "equate".

Apparently I misspelled acquaint as well:

1. make aware: to make somebody, or yourself, aware of or familiar with something

2. introduce somebody: to introduce somebody or make somebody known to somebody else

Definition for equate:

1. consider as equivalent to something: to treat, show, or consider something as equivalent to something else

2. reduce something to the same level: to reduce something to the same level or value as something else

3. form something into equation: to put something into the form of an equation involving an equality

Yep. You are right. Equate is the correct word. Thank you.

"Tellastory" does not determine what is, or is not macroevolution.

Okay then.

Bing Dictionary definition of macro evolution.

1. theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups

Another site goes into explanations:

Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution,.....

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. ....

And you're going to need to provide us with that quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic informaiton" before we talk about gains or losses of it.

Let's start with chromosomes then and how sterilty results from crossbreeding.

Understanding Genetics

A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.

But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.

They have trouble making sperm or eggs because their chromosomes don't match up well. And, to a lesser extent, because of their chromosome number.

A mule gets 32 horse chromosomes from mom and 31 donkey chromosomes from dad for a total of 63 chromosomes. (A horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62).

And even though the tiger & the lion has the same number of chromosomes, we see how this bold portion of the next quote shows why sterility is the result for what it is.

To make a sperm or an egg, cells need to do something called meiosis. The idea behind meiosis is to get one copy of each chromosome into the sperm or egg.

For example, let's focus on chromosome 1. Like I said, we have one from mom and one from dad. At the end of meiosis, the sperm or egg has either mom's or dad's chromosome 1. Not both.

This process requires two things. First, the chromosomes have to look pretty similar, meaning they are about the same size and have the same information. This will have to do with how well they match up during meiosis.

And second, at a later critical stage, there has to be four of each kind of chromosome. Neither of these can happen completely with a mule.
Let's take a closer look at meiosis to see why this is. The first step in meiosis is that all of the chromosomes make copies of themselves. No problem here...a mule cell can pull this off just fine.

So now we have a cell with 63 doubled chromosomes. It is the next step that causes the real problem.

In the next step, all the same chromosomes need to match up in a very particular way. So, the four chromosome 1's all need to line up together. But this can't happen in a mule very well.

Like I said, a donkey and a horse chromosome aren't necessarily similar enough to match up. Add to this the unmatched chromosome and you have a real problem. The chromosomes can't find their partners and this causes the sperm and eggs not to get made.

So this is a big reason for a mule being sterile....

So the law of biogenesis dictates that life comes from pre existing life and cannot come from nothing. Therefore a cow will always be a cow and a man will always be a man. No chromosome is going to come out of nowhere or nothing to be added to a living organism for macro evolution to occur.

Huh? Are you talking about Hand2 and Sonic Hedgehog genes?


How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » News » University of Florida

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt.

“By integrating data from fossils with developmental data from embryonic dolphins, we were able to trace these genetic changes to the point in time when they happened,” Thewissen said.
​

"Evolutionary theorists" did the same thing with assuming those slits in human fetal development were gills.

Theoritical applications derived from assumptions made on what appears to be budded hind limbs in spotted dolphins' fetal development that ignores why sterility can result from meiosis is hardly anything worth considering as fact.

But people will believe what they want to believe, yet all the while claiming to be logical and reasonable, and not chasing a fairy tale themselves.

I believe God's promise that all those that seek, shall find and in spite of the misinformation and the varying representaions of misinformation, those that seek the truth will find Jesus Christ and be set free from the lies of the evolution theory which is a false science as it should be aptly called.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And mutation does not involve added genetic information.

"Gene duplication" disagrees.

Like the Catholic catechism with their double talk and many words, that quote is simple enough to cite what macro evolution actually is which defers from micro evolution greatly

No. You quote mined it and then even misrepresented the quote. What you said in that paragraph completely contradicts all the rest that was mentioned in the article you mined the quote from.

Anyone who actually clicks the link and even only scans the article would realise that immediatly.

Yes, they go on about gradual change and with their many words, they make that simple quote not mean what they said it means.

What you claim it means. See, this is why it is a called a quote mine

In short: you are a liar.

All I see here is atypical response of no information about how you define those laws in correcting my layman's definition of it.

You don't have a "layman's definition" of it. You have an "anti-science, religious misrepresentation" of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hmmm... lessee.... chromosomes.

How many chromosomes do people have? - Genetics Home Reference

Humans have 23 chromosomes.

In comparisons of apes of 24 chromosomes to humans' 23 chromosomes at an evolutinist's site.

Human and Ape Chromosomes



If we had evolved from apes: where is our extra chromosomes? Wopuld that not suggest a de evolution rather than macro evolution?

The point is; even if you have one speculated as ascending; where is that chromosome going to come from? Nowhere? From nothing?

Seems the quote verifies that regardless of the different kinds of apes, they all have 24 chromosomes and always will have 24 chromosomes just as a human will always have 23, even though it continues with the assumption that somehow, we had evolved from apes.

Human chromosome 2 is the result of an end-to-end chromosome fusion. Chromosomes have one centromere and a telomere. The telomere marks the end of a chromosome.

But the human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres and 2 telomeres. One of those telomeres is found smack in the middle of the chromosome.

If we split the second human chromosome at that centered telomere, we get a near perfect match with chromosomes 2 and 13 of chimp DNA.

Here's some advice for you: actually inform yourself on the subjects before arguing against them.

You have written a lot of enormous posts here and I actually have trouble finding 2 sequentials sentences in any of them where you didn't make such statements of ignorance or were just plain wrong in every possible way.

You are not arguing against evolution theory. You are arguing against something completely different. I don't know if it is sheer ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the science.

Either way, it's incredibly false.

It's also rather funny that the second link you posted in the above quote actually explains this. Did you actually read the article?

Here's the first sentence: Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular phylogenetic data that we usually see

Here's the TITLE: [SIZE=+1]Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry[/SIZE]

And it also goes on to explain why the rest of your nonsense about different chromosme counts is exactly that: nonsense:
We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species. (...) variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case

The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's (sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number, Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do produce fertile offspring (see reference 9).

See... this is how we know that you are just full of it and shouldn't be taken seriously. If you don't even bother to read your own sources...

I have clicked 2 of the links you posted and on both occasions the articles said the opposite of the point you were trying to make, while you were pretending the opposite.


This makes you a liar.

 

[Delphiki]

The problem is micro evolution is the law of Bio Genesis whereas macro evolution is only theoritical, is not observed, and cannot be proven.

You don't listen. Get the whole micro/macro nonsense out of your head. There's just evolution, which is observed. Even speciation is observed, as well as apparent in the evidence.

The above quote of yours is the law of biogenesis.

No it's not. Nowhere did I state that live can only come from life, which is what the so-called law of biogenesis is, which is also a simple assumption based on an observation. Pasteur jumped to a conclusion based on what he saw and he can't be faulted for it. Now we know that the contrary is quite possible.

By your own quote above, you are opposing yourself in the next quote below.

Which I don't. You just suck at comprehension.

Still yet to be proven. So either bacteria will always be bacteria and humans will always be humans like the law of biogenesis says and even you said so too, OR bacteria will not always be bacteria and humans will not always be humans. See?

Humans and chimps came from the great apes. Humans and chimps are still apes. Humans and chimps are subsets of apes. This isn't a contradiction, nor is it a claim of life coming from non-life (which is what biogenesis actually is -- seriously... look it up. you have an internet).

The use of microscopic to prove the existence of macroscopic things is hardly the same thing after all when it involves seeing them whereas we are talking about how the microscopic becomes the macroscopic as in micro evolution will become macroevolution if given enough time.

And we see evidence for evolution at the species level of change in the evidence. Go to a natural history museum.