Nope. We've discovered we were wrong and that heme in the blood will preserve collagen. Do try and keep up.
False. When it became necessary, a story was concocted to explain away soft tissue. It is no more a scientific explanation than 'aliens kept the fossils from completely mineralizing' by application of pixie dust.
Prokaryotic cells aren't that complicated.
Not complicated compared to what, a space shuttle?
Then this should be easy. Name one known information system that just happened and prove it.
The
so-called chirality problem exists in the minds of Creationists only.
You should proof-read some of these articles for "may have" "could have" "possible" "might" "possibly", all denoting "we have no idea, so we're guessing wildly."
A falsehood you've been corrected on enough times to warrant my calling this a fib.
Sorry, but "you're wrong" doesn't prove anything. Can you prove that any organism can mutate dozens or hundreds of time in such a way as to complement the earlier mutations in order to form a new form that is functional? An example would be a non-flying animal growing wings that actually work, along with less dense bones and the types of muscles and ligaments that would be needed, not to mention the ability to perch and see like a bird.
Same here. You've been told repeatedly that origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
Of course it does. Nothing dead is going to evolve.
But even starting just after, how did some frankenvirus live long enough to breed, much less evolve, when they were supposedly slapped together so haphazardly?
You've never defined "kind" so this claim is meaningless. As far as basal organisms evolving characteristics very different from the basal form, that has been observed in the fossil and genetic record.
Not quite. Different bones have been observed. None have been seen having offspring that were different than themselves, just as nothing living has been observed giving birth to a different type of animal. Different animals are just that; different. They don't come with paternity papers stating their lineage. Scientists have a hard time even telling juvenile from adult specimens, so how are they going to tell two different animals are related when all you have is some bones, and rarely a whole skeleton?
A falsehood you've been corrected on previously. As far as the part in bold, it's a great example of how Creationists simply do not understand evolution. There's nothing in evolutionary theory that demands that a lineage go extinct. So-called Lazarus taxa are not a problem for evolution, but Creationists don't understand that because they don't understand how evolution works. A living T-Rex walking down the streets of Bozeman, Montana today would be less problematic for evolution than a single T-Rex tooth in Jurassic strata.
Be glad I'm in a positive mood, or I'd report you for your false claim that creationists do not understand evolution, when we know it better than most evolutionists, clearly. But you have to be willing to dig past the deception and the just-so stories told as fact.
Notice you dismissed 2/3 of my examples to focus on one you thought was wrong. Yet, if dinosaurs were living anywhere today, there would be bones from the past millions of years since they supposedly died out just lying around. Not a big problem for a coelacanth possibly, but a big problem for a T-Rex or a Brontosaur. And those from the last 50,000 years or so would be testable by carbon-14 dating.[/quote][/QUOTE]
