Oncedeceived: Loudmouth there is no way to list angles, however, if we use Feduccia; he believes (wrong or right doesn't matter) has a different angle than other scientists.
Me: Scientists have already looked at that angle, and found that the evidence does not support it.
Does it make sense now?
I didn't say it wasn't anything other than evolution. Do you always have such tunnel vision?
That is why I keep asking you to explain yourself which you rarely do. I askedy you what you meant by angles, and you were as etheral as usual. It would really help if you would start filling in the blanks instead of floating all over the place.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ANGLES? You said in a previous post, "Really? There are many angles to every facet of science." What does that mean?
When you say that there are separately created kinds, how can that mean that they were not separately created?
You just seem to expect that I am arguing against evolution every time I post.
Then explain what you are arguing.
How do they know he is wrong?
Because they found transitionals with a mixture of theropod and avian features which supported the theropod origin of birds.
What did they base their conclusions on?
Comparative morphology of living birds and extinct non-avian dinosaurs.
How are they detected, because I thought that was the whole problem. Epigenesis works in the genome and so does HGT through recombination and such.
HGT moves exact copies of genes or chunks of genome from one species to another. We have sequenced the human and mouse genome, as one example. If there were a gene in mice that was nearly identical to a human gene while being much different in other primate and rodent species then it would be exceedingly easy to detect. Nothing like that has been found outside of ERV's.
Recombination events involve DNA that is already in the genome, and epigenetics does not even change DNA sequence (it involves DNA methyloation and histone ubiquitination). Epigenetics is also short lived and needs constant stimuli to stay on the same track. None of these are considered HGT in and of themselves. HGT involves the movement of genetic material from one species to another.
I don't know and either do you.
But you just said that you did know.
"It is not an accurate depiction of the Biblical kinds."
So at first you say that a depiction is not accurate, and the next you are playing dumb. Why is that?
How do you know that they lack HGT? The way I understand it is that there is no certain way to detect that.
