Looking for all the missing links

[AnotherAtheist]

So good brother, I suggest the letter is apt.

Although evolutionists are as entitled to their interpretations of the evidence and the weight they put on any data provided, as any other faith, the assertion that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution is a gross misrepresention. TOE is the biggest misrepresentation ever perpetrated on mankind.

If it was a gross misrepresentation, you'd be able to tell us why it's a gross misrepresentation.

There is a huge amount of evidence.

1. From the fossil record
2. From DNA studies
3. From morphology

and more.

You have not come up with any reasonable arguments as to why this evidence should be discounted. You say that scientists change their theories and that new evidence is found over time. Both are required processes by which science progresses, and examination of all sciences, biology, physics, geology, etc. show that this process has given us better and better knowledge of how the world works and what we can do.

Hence, your rejection of the mountains of evidence for evolution is entirely transparently false. You can have your creationist love-in agreeing with others that you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, but I don't know what you expect that to do in terms of convincing anyone else.

 

[gods prophetess]

hey creation always beats evolution for sure ok praying for you be encouraged and keeop the faith yours in christ prophetess cherrie

 

[Guy1]

hey creation always beats evolution for sure ok praying for you be encouraged and keeop the faith yours in christ prophetess cherrie

Congrats. You've found a way to string 22 words together and say absolutely nothing at the same time!

 

[juvenissun]

LOL... God Forbid!!

I disagree with that. Atheists can have any number of positions on animal rights... I suspect most in fact value human life over other animals. Like I said, its an ego-centric position, but a common one.

I am all for environmentalism, when it isn't taken too far. There's an old saying... don't sh#@! in the bed you sleep in. Unfortunately, we are doing that right now. I like to say, it isn't about saving the earth (the earth will be here long after we are gone), its about saving us! Once again, ego-centric.

That is the problem. Atheists have a number of positions on anything. That is because they ADD additional conditions to the basic definition of atheist, and the consequence is a logic mess.

Most atheists (you may be an odd one since you reasoned with creationists too much) think human is only another species of animal. This is the only logic consequence based on the definition of evolution (yes, atheist is included in evolutionist). So, there is no reason to assign more value to human than to an endangered species (that is also why communism can kill millions of people simply for an idea).

All that is fine, as long as there is a definition to the species nicknamed human. And the argument is still, we do not have that definition even according to taxonomy, or genetics (statistics is not allowed in definition). So, if you think a human is "easy" to identify (I agree), the reason MUST be non-scientific.

 

[Jro]

What is wrong to have more species ? Would that better illustrates the process of evolution? May be that would make more sense to the term of "transitional species".

I don't really understand what you're saying here. There's nothing wrong with having more species, nor is there anything wrong with using genetic markers to identify them. It's an important task in conservation, because you might think you have 10,000 individuals on a preserve when really you've got 200 of one species and 9,800 of the other. Even if they look exactly the same, they ain't gonna reproduce, so that smaller population might be extirpated without careful management. I just think it's kind of crazy how everywhere we look there's this diversity we weren't even aware of, hidden in the genes.

 

[USincognito]

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Shouldn't you be used to that by now.

 

[NailsII]

I heard that 95+% of human DNA overlapped that of chimp's, so there must be at least 1% of human DNA that is different and unique. I just want to know if that 1% or less than 1% of DNA could be used to define what human is.

Those people should work on human first, instead of spending time to define an elephant species.

Great idea, any idea of what to do if one of these unique sequences is found to have a variant in humans? Do we include all the variations?

hey creation always beats evolution for sure ok praying for you be encouraged and keeop the faith yours in christ prophetess cherrie

in what way?
That it makes you feel nicer?
That it is supported by more evidence?

 

[createdtoworship]

so can anyone knock me off my high horse and provide one transitional fossil that involves macro evolution

(macro evolution definition= evolution above a species level)

???

I am getting mighty proud, need some humbling.




p.s. I will help you out, there are two genras of vegetable that can cross breed one is the radish and the other is the cabbage. They are called rabbage.

But it's offspring don't reproduce the desired affect, they are either cabbage or radish.

Evolution fail you see.

Good luck the clock is ticking....

 

[Astridhere]

If it was a gross misrepresentation, you'd be able to tell us why it's a gross misrepresentation.

There is a huge amount of evidence.

1. From the fossil record

I have already spoken to the misrepresentation withing the fossil record, ambulocetus being one example that more resembles a common day sea lion than a whale, indohyus that more resembles a variety of mouse deer, the mess you have in creodonta, the fact that tetrapods were here 400mya and predate tiktaalic, current challenges to the dino to bird theory. Quite frankly evolutionists think they have fossil evidence but only if they disengage the science of observation and misrepresent early creations of kinds here today as intermediate flavours of the month.

Four feet in the past: trackways pre-date earliest body fossils : Nature
Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?
Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?
Birds' Pecking Behavior Unchanged Since Dinosaurs : Discovery News

What you have actually found are seal lions, deer ancestors, birds and many other species that predate the ancestors they were meant to have evolved from. That is why evolutionists need to misrepresent fossils as some bizarre imtermediate that takes its place in the evo lime light for a while then is falsified or challenged.

2. From DNA studies

DNA comparisons are no less misrepresented than any other support you have named. In desperation your researchers have looked mostly to Mtdna, the cells powerhouse and the only region in the entire genome that demonstrates similarity. By the word 'similar' evolutionary researchers have to ignore huge chuncks of missing DNA, insertions, rearrangements. Indeed what evolutionists call similar is only similar if one ignores all the differences then speculates that the differences can only be due to evolution.

Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness.”
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf​

It appears to me that evolutionists have no idea what the word 'similar' means. Indeed mankinds DNA in actual fact is nothing like a chimps.​

3. From morphology

and more.

Oh you mean where evolutionists say that a similarity that fits their paradigm is ancestral and where it doesn't it is then homoplasic or convergent? What evos have done is invented terminology to hand wave away any anomoly or falsification to any evolutionary assertion.

Let's remember Neanderthal. These researchers could not even get Neanderthal right from the fossil record. They made Neanderthal a bent over hairy intermediate when it suited them and they had stacks of fossils to work with. How much less credible will anything proposed of more ancient and less numerous fossils be misleading and erraneous?

You have not come up with any reasonable arguments as to why this evidence should be discounted. You say that scientists change their theories and that new evidence is found over time. Both are required processes by which science progresses, and examination of all sciences, biology, physics, geology, etc. show that this process has given us better and better knowledge of how the world works and what we can do.

Hence, your rejection of the mountains of evidence for evolution is entirely transparently false. You can have your creationist love-in agreeing with others that you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, but I don't know what you expect that to do in terms of convincing anyone else.

The mountains of evidence for evolution is no more than mountains of twoddle. The only thing that has remained stable in evolutionary science is the war cry 'it all evolved'. The how, when, where and why are all still up for grabs and yet you, in your faith, will believe regardless. That is what a good little follower is meant to do, so good on you!

I most certainly have come up with a reasonable argument as to why this supposed evidence evolutionists produce should be discounted. The proposed mountains and libraries of evolutionary support is obviously misrepresented, erraneous, straw grabbing, convoluted speculation.

Again I suggest that evos are entitled to believe that a fossil that more closely resembles a sea lion is a whale intermediate. You are entitled to suggest that a fossil that looks almost exactly like a mouse deer or chevrotain fossil is a tetrapod morphing into a sea creature. You are entitled to believe arch is an intermediate bird although modern day bird footprints and protoavis have been found that predate Archaeopteryx. You may believe what you wish and choose any research that is the flavour of the month to support.

What you cannot do is say evolutionary speculations on these creatures has any credibility as flavour of the month. Speculation will never be evidence of anything.

Indeed evolution is a knee jerk science with little, if any, predictive ability. Evolution is a hand waving science that invents all sorts of convolutions and complications such as deletions, insertions, rearrangements, genetic and morphological homoplasy, convergent and parallel evolution etc etc etc, to keep it alive.

The letter in the first post is a good reflection of the evolutionary status quo. Good brother asked for an opinion and I have given one. Unfortunately for evolutionists I do not require their acceptance. Indeed their non acceptance is welcomed as it is an indication that I am correct. This is because evolutionists end up being wrong about most things given enough time, as demonstrated by 150 years of instability, change and falsifications of previously supportive theories and assertions that now reside in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

 

[Astridhere]

so can anyone knock me off my high horse and provide one transitional fossil that involves macro evolution

(macro evolution definition= evolution above a species level)

???

I am getting mighty proud, need some humbling.




p.s. I will help you out, there are two genras of vegetable that can cross breed one is the radish and the other is the cabbage. They are called rabbage.

But it's offspring don't reproduce the desired affect, they are either cabbage or radish.

Evolution fail you see.

Good luck the clock is ticking....

I'll try to stick up for evos for a change just for fun.....

We have seen the beak on a bird get bigger and evos can give it a new name. Oh hang on a minute, it was still a bird and still a finch.

Maybe it is evolving into some creature like a beaked whale!

 

[Guy1]

I'll try to stick up for evos for a change just for fun.....

Aww how sweet.

We have seen the beak on a bird get bigger

Among other things.

and evos can give it a new name.

Depending on how different it is.

Oh hang on a minute, it was still a bird and still a finch.

Yup. Is there a problem?

Maybe it is evolving into some creature like a beaked whale.

If it is then I want to be the first to discover it and publish the paper. I can see it now "Puertorican scientist refutes evolutionary theory with startling new creature." I'd be famous!

 

[Split Rock]

so can anyone knock me off my high horse and provide one transitional fossil that involves macro evolution

(macro evolution definition= evolution above a species level)

???

I am getting mighty proud, need some humbling.




p.s. I will help you out, there are two genras of vegetable that can cross breed one is the radish and the other is the cabbage. They are called rabbage.

But it's offspring don't reproduce the desired affect, they are either cabbage or radish.

Evolution fail you see.

Good luck the clock is ticking....

I could have sworn I responded to this "challenge" already...

Oh yeah.. I did, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7652015-44/#post60543304

You responded by saying the whale transitionals were "whale like" and the horse transitionals were "horse like." I still haven't figured out how that is a refutation...

 

[juvenissun]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. There's nothing wrong with having more species, nor is there anything wrong with using genetic markers to identify them. It's an important task in conservation, because you might think you have 10,000 individuals on a preserve when really you've got 200 of one species and 9,800 of the other. Even if they look exactly the same, they ain't gonna reproduce, so that smaller population might be extirpated without careful management. I just think it's kind of crazy how everywhere we look there's this diversity we weren't even aware of, hidden in the genes.

According to me, we should take a detail look at human first. We think humans are all of one species today. But are the gene marks of human agree with it? If not, then should we divide human into (sub-?)species, or simply a few species? If not, then we know gene should not be used as an criterion for species identification. It is a very important, and significant job. Are we doing it? (I guess it must have been. I just wonder what do they learn.)

 

[Astridhere]

Guy1

It is really easy to be famous. The only skill you need behind a relevant credential is to be a master story teller.

You can tell any story you like pretty much by finding any old bone and suggesting any non plausible scenario to accomodate it into an evolutionary paradigm. You will have your hour of fame just like the Leakeys did before they were accused of grossely misrepresenting Rudolfensis and the shrinking of Turkana Boy the pelvic mutant.

You have heard the mess of misrepresentation I think of what evos suggest is the best so called speculative evidence they have for evolution in the whale.

Here is the story of horse evolution, another purported strong testimony to evolution. For decades the gradual change in size of the horse was shoved down creationists throats as being undeniable evidence of macro evolution.

The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth. Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, determined through a method of analysis called cladistics, which has shown evolution to be a more complex, branching history, much like the genealogical history of your own family.
The Evolution of Horses

See this guy below wrote a book and was wrong. Libraries have mountains of this stuff evolutionists call mountains of evidence, that are actually mountains of rubbish.

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...2&jid=GEO&volumeId=130&issueId=06&aid=4467028

The same goes for junk DNA and the decades of shoving this totally non functional evolutionary remnant of vestigiality down creationists throats. Of course creationists always predicted that non coding DNA would be found to be functional rather than an evolutionary remnant and that has been and continues to be validated as we speak. That is what 'good science' is meant to look like.

If you want fame don't bother becoming a real scientist, become an evolutionary researcher of some kind. They are in one of the few proffesions where one can become famous, be consistently wrong and not get fired.

 

[juvenissun]

Shouldn't you be used to that by now.

Don't join the group of clowns and lower down yourself. Participate.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

so can anyone knock me off my high horse and provide one transitional fossil that involves macro evolution

(macro evolution definition= evolution above a species level)

???

I am getting mighty proud, need some humbling.




p.s. I will help you out, there are two genras of vegetable that can cross breed one is the radish and the other is the cabbage. They are called rabbage.

But it's offspring don't reproduce the desired affect, they are either cabbage or radish.

Evolution fail you see.

Good luck the clock is ticking....

You still haven't explained how the solar neutrino problem has not yet been solved.

 

[Astridhere]

According to me, we should take a detail look at human first. We think humans are all of one species today. But are the gene marks of human agree with it? If not, then should we divide human into (sub-?)species, or simply a few species? If not, then we know gene should not be used as an criterion for species identification. It is a very important, and significant job. Are we doing it? (I guess it must have been. I just wonder what do they learn.)

Mankind shares more differences morphologically than many species evolutionists assign new species names to. eg a larger beak or body gets a new species name, a different colour gives a new species or subspecies name. Mankind has recently been documented as having up to 0.5% genetic variability and less than some similar species evos have assigned different species names to.

In my creationist view 'species' is often just a descriptor of an adaptive change within kind and may inform how many varieties of the same kind were initially created. From what I have read the adaptive changes that appear in observed species change are epigenetic and somatic in nature, while still being reflected by somatic changes in DNA. Epigenetic inheritance is a design created to interplay between the environment and any created kinds adaptation to the environment, a requirement for life to exist in a changeable environment.

There are many adaptations/species within a created kind. A created kind being the decendants of the intial created kind. The dog kind appear to be one created pair, or many, all much the same as the wolf. However birds appear to be monophylogenetic and may be the desendants of many varities of different birds initially created that belong to the bird kind. A kind being discerned in the fossil record by hallmarks and traits of significance shared in common.

It is fascinating to peer behind evolutionary interpretations and algorithmic magic and speculate on how it really was in the beginning.

I guess if evolutionists apply the same criteria for speciation that they do within the fossil record to mankind, they would look silly. Hence the term 'race' is very convenient.

 

[Guy1]

Guy1

It is really easy to be famous. The only skill you need behind a relevant credential is to be a master story teller.

That's a good way to become famous in literary circles. To be a great scientist you need to do revolutionary science.

You can tell any story you like pretty much by finding any old bone and suggesting any non plausible scenario to accomodate it into an evolutionary paradigm.

non-plausible scenario: A population of X survived and gave birth to this other similar looking population.

Yup. I wonder what they're on making such wild assumptions.

You will have your hour of fame just like the Leakeys did before they were accused of grossely misrepresenting Rudolfensis and the shrinking of Turkana Boy the pelvic mutant.

I don't know what you're referring to and I'm honestly at the point where I just dismiss what your side has to say off-hand if there are no links. So do me a favor and get one for me.

You have heard the mess of misrepresentation I think of what evos suggest is the best so called speculative evidence they have for evolution in the whale.

If fossils are speculative then yes.

Here is the story of horse evolution, another purported strong testimony to evolution. For decades the gradual change in size of the horse was shoved down creationists throats as being undeniable evidence of macro evolution.

I don't recall any scientific evidence to be undeniable.

The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth. Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution, determined through a method of analysis called cladistics, which has shown evolution to be a more complex, branching history, much like the genealogical history of your own family.
The Evolution of Horses

As I was reading this I thought to myself "Wow maybe he did his research?", until I realized you'd copy pasted something written by someone much smarter than yourself.

See this guy below wrote a book and was wrong. Libraries have mountains of this stuff evolutionists call mountains of evidence, that are actually mountains of rubbish.

Wrong according to you, your fellow creationists, or was there a paper refuting the incredibly detailed record of horse ancestry?

The same goes for junk DNA and the decades of shoving this totally non functional evolutionary remnant of vestigiality down creationists throats.

It's not vestigial. Last I heard it prevented the expression of harmful traits.

Of course creationists always predicted that non coding DNA would be found to be functional rather than an evolutionary remnant and that has been and continues to be validated as we speak. That is what 'good science' is meant to look like.

So you start off by saying it has no function then tell me you've predicted it's functional? Where are the articles from creationists making such predictions?

If you want fame don't bother becoming a real scientist, become an evolutionary researcher of some kind.

They are scientists. Currently I'm a Biotech undergrad and have plans to aid in the development of phage therapies and oncolytic viruses.

They are in one of the few proffesions where one can become famous, be consistently wrong and not get fired.

I think you're referring to creationist preachers.


I'll end with a question of my own? How would one falsify Creation?

 

[Astridhere]

Guy1 I have provided a stack of links. However I find evos ignore them or do not understand them. If anyone looks through my posts they have numerous links, mostly from evolutionary research, for evolutionists to ignore.

I assume most of you with such strong views have some knowledge of what I feel is common knowledge for anyone that keeps up to date in the field they want to defend or debate.

Here is one on Rudolfensis

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed


Here is something on the shrinking Turkana Boy of athletic fame.

Some authors have suggested that Homo erectus displayed these adaptations as adaptations to long distance running. Characters such as tall body size, large acetabula (where the femur meets the pelvis), and narrow torsos and pelves are used as evidence that Homo erectus was increasing locomotor efficiency. However, the pelvis from Gona displays none of these adaptations. Her bi-iliac breadth is wide, her ilia are flared laterally, her acetabula are tiny, and her pubic rami are long.
Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

Clearly it is going to be difficult trying to have a conversation with you. I would be spending 90% of my time educating you in the recent developments within the evolutionary myth you are hoping to defend.

The biggest point being that nothing I propose as a theoretical interpretation of any data could be worse than the 150 years of mess and delusionary support that evolutionists have to provide as I have spoken to the past few days. That is the point and one that clearly is factual and undeniable.

Evos do not have all the answers and creationists do not have to have all the answers either. However creationists do not need all the convolutions and excuses evos have had to rely on to explain the unexpected and such huge anomolies that indeed TOE should have been thrown out by now eg Human/chimp male Y chromosome.


Hence big brothers letter is a good reflection of the chaos and changing speculation evolutionists present as support for their theory.

Oh I nearly forgot here is the Y chromosome info you should already know about.

Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees


Thu, 2010-01-14 00:11 -- John Hawks

Holy crap!

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
​

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human".

This is from a new paper that's just shown up in the Nature advance publication zone. The authors are Jennifer Hughes and colleagues, and the subject is the first complete sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome.
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

The Y chromosome comparison alone is sufficient to demonstrate mankind and chimpanzee are two separate creations. You can believe in 'accelerated genomic regions' and all the convoluted and debated speculations as to how the unpredicted and definitiely unexpected anomolies occured in evo terms if you wish. As for me, the most parsinomous explanation is that they were created independently.


I have already posted an article about the unquantifiable nature of genome comparisons as spoken to by your own evolutionary researchers. Perhaps you could actually read it and refute it if you disagree rather than going off on tangents. Demonstrate how natans is not like a seal as I have asserted. You do not refute me at all. What you do as many here do is resort to generalities, endless irrelevant questions and asides.

In the end you will believe what you want to believe eg sea lions that are ancestors to mouse deer, chimp ancestors like Lucy that have human feet, dinos that morphed into birds although modern bird footprints predate dinosaurs. Go for it and you are welcome to it.

However do not try to insinuate my level of reasoning ability, education or intelligence is lacking because I do not swallow these non plausible scenarios with glee, as you do. Do not accuse me of not being able to support my view because, my friend, I am one of those creationists that do not have any problem in providing support from your own muddle to support my assertions eg shrinking Turk and the Leakey woopsie!

I also see many evidences for creation not related to the thread topic. However, the fossil evidence, the cambrian sudden appearance of a variety of kinds, the sudden appearance of the seal and the deer, tetrapods 400mya at the close of the devonian that had no tails regardless of evo assumtions as to why etc. The excuses put forward under punctuated equilibrium as examples of the use of totally unrelated kinds misrepresented as intermediates. Entire species speculated from a single bone, an inability to get a recent fossil description correct in Neanderthal without the clarity of DNA sequencing. That is what I see. I see evidence that is more in line with creative events than evolutionary ones.

Why do you suggest 'the letter' offered by good brother is not a true reflection of the evolutionary status quo?

 

[Guy1]

Guy1 I have provided a stack of links. However I find evos ignore them or do not understand them. If anyone looks through my posts they have numerous links, mostly from evolutionary research, for evolutionists to ignore.

I looked at them, and it's clear to me that you're the one who has no idea what they say. The first link speaks of an error in the reconstruction of a skull, the second is a paleoanthropologist speculating (And even with this he's against you) on chmp Y chromosome evolution, and the third one is an abstract for a paper which is noting a difference in human Y chromosomes and chimp Y chromosomes. I don't see how any of these prove your point.

I assume most of you with such strong views have some knowledge of what I feel is common knowledge for anyone that keeps up to date in the field they want to defend or debate.

What are your qualifications? How old are you for that matter? I'm 16 and a molecular biology undergrad at an accredited university in the region. I understand some of what's being said in the links, and I can assure you they don't support your case.

Some authors have suggested that Homo erectus displayed these adaptations as adaptations to long distance running. Characters such as tall body size, large acetabula (where the femur meets the pelvis), and narrow torsos and pelves are used as evidence that Homo erectus was increasing locomotor efficiency. However, the pelvis from Gona displays none of these adaptations. Her bi-iliac breadth is wide, her ilia are flared laterally, her acetabula are tiny, and her pubic rami are long.
Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect

They described a fossil. What of it?

Clearly it is going to be difficult trying to have a conversation with you. I would be spending 90% of my time educating you in the recent developments within the evolutionary myth you are hoping to defend.

Actually I'd spend 100% of my time laughing at your condescending language.

The biggest point being that nothing I propose as a theoretical interpretation of any data could be worse than the 150 years of mess and delusionary support that evolutionists have to provide as I have spoken to the past few days.

I don't quite get what you're saying here.

That is the point and one that clearly is factual and undeniable.

I'll give you a hint: It's the one you don't like.

Evos do not have all the answers

If by "Evos" you mean evolutionary scientists then they've been able to answer any questions they pose to the theory.

and creationists do not have to have all the answers either.

You have no answers period.

However creationists do not need all the convolutions and excuses

"There are no transitional forms, there is no scientific basis for evolution, evos know they're lying, the bible says ..., irreducible complexity, lalalalalalala I'm not listening. lalalala, well i didn't say that, I mean this. No I mean this instead." To name a few of your people's tactics

evos have had to rely on to explain the unexpected and such huge anomolies

Like animals changing over time and diverging into several distinct groups that are incapable of interbreeding?

that indeed TOE should have been thrown out by now eg Human/chimp male Y chromosome.

O NOEZ! A chromosome was different. Nobody ever predicted that chimps would be different after several thousand generations of sexual isolation!

Hence big brothers letter is a good reflection of the chaos

I won't deny that. Evolution is chaotic.

and changing speculation evolutionists present as support for their theory.

*GASP* Scientists ... changing their minds?! Blasphemy!

Oh I nearly forgot here is the Y chromosome info you should already know about.

Thanks.

I have already posted an article about the unquantifiable nature of genome comparisons as spoken to by your own evolutionary researchers. Perhaps you could actually read it and refute it if you disagree rather than going off on tangents. Demonstrate how natans is not like a seal as I have asserted. You do not refute me at all. What you do as many here do is resort to generalities, endless irrelevant questions and asides.

I'm not the guy to turn to for these kinds of things. I'm sure the scientists on this forum can answer yoru question.

In the end you will believe what you want to believe eg sea lions that are ancestors to mouse deer, chimp ancestors like Lucy that have human feet, dinos that morphed into birds although modern bird footprints predate dinosaurs. Go for it and you are welcome to it.

So much wrong with this, but I've been typing for almost 20 minutes (Read time included) and my patience is running thin.

However do not try to insinuate my level of reasoning ability, education or intelligence is lacking

I'm not insinuating it; I'm outright stating it. You have shown that you have no idea what anyone is saying and you've provided me links that do nothing more than confirm the descent with modification that is predicted by the theory of evolution.

because I do not swallow these non plausible scenarios with glee, as you do.

No you swallow the far more improbable, less substantiated scenario that a magic man made everything for no apparent reason.

30 minutes in my patience has run dry. I leave the rest to someone smarter than myself.