you will find..your illistrated..reply/here

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91936#p91936

be specific

get..some names
put up..specific links!

like i did..at the link
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91936#p91936

refute..what is revealed
at the darn link

*name names
aj/[quote]..''There were transitionals..for reptiles to birds[/quote]

it was bull
so i clicked..on the specific link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

[

first words...!

[QUOTE]

The origin..of birds
is contentious
[/quote]

so it..cant be science..!
some..holdoout..*peers disagree..so
*its not..a science

get/it?

lol
then this spin

[quote]
T. rex and birds
are..*more closely related..lol..to each other
than either is..LOL..to Alligator...[/quote]

this is based..on a single dna sample[trex]..lol

so tell me..ol mate

i have had my hand..in the guts of a bird
[chicke/pigeon]..they are warmblooded

and i skined..a few lizards
their guts..is cold blooded

so are these...lol..dino'sores
warm like birds..or cold..like lisard

if cold like lizzie..then
how it get half/cold blood
half/warm blood..

in a massive evolution jump?
l;ol

there are many differences..biologily/phisologicly
between cold blood
and warm blood mechanisms..

[any feature missing..and
the..cold reptile mutant..is dead]

this picture..is a hoot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dino_bird_h.jpg

see that..the breat of a chicken
looks nothing..like the ribcage..of a lizard

and lizards..dont got..the muscules
and dont got..the deep keel bone..they attatch to..either

but heck..you seen
the dino/saw size duck
so now..&you believe dino-pigs fly

please point out
where your claiming to be 'right'
and where...im wrong

[quote]
and land animals..to sea creatures,etc.[/quote]

i presume your talking of the wolf-cow
that devolved..lol..into a lol whale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

ok backtrack here
lets egsamin
lizard to mammal..[note not to all
or any...*real living mammals

funny bout all these gaps..eh bluey

see this guy..[clearly a reptile]
evolving lol..on its way to warm blood mammal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thrinaxodon_Lionhinus.jpg

evolves lol..into this....*drawing of a fury mammal lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morganucodon.jpg

evolves into this drawing..lol
of a fury mammal lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yanoconodon_BW.jpg

now look at this joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

or compare skulls ya numbsculs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

look ol mate

I HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC
so im know im not wasting your time

PLEASE MATE
be specific

reveal SPECIFICLY
what ya got

lol

OUG,

I’m not reading the other website anymore so don’t bother posting there. From what I’ve seen, it’s just more of the same misunderstandings, misrepresentations and pointing to gaps in our knowledge (most of which aren’t even there) as if absence of evidence meant evidence of absence. Then there’s the occasional corker like this one...

<<i presume your talking of the wolf-cow that devolved..lol..into a lol whale>>

“Devolved”? Just because they went back into the water, you refer to it as devolving? I suppose their genome “lost information” too, eh?

That’s another classic creationist claim.

<<if cold like lizzie..then how it get half/cold blood half/warm blood.. in a massive evolution jump?>>

As a side-effect of slow, gradual changes in the cardiovascular system due to a need for increased aerobic activity and metabolic rate...

http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/30.pdf

Enjoy.

I’ll look forward to your quote-mining and misrepresenting of the article.

AJ, he is just trying to baffle you with BS, stop trying to educate him. It doesn't work.

David

i know aj..is a time waster
putting up..unread link..after link

now his authority
is a magazine article
http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/30.pdf

the actual science/text
not turning up..in his search?

or him..not being able/qualified
to egsamin/confirm..the actual numbers

or the studies....quote mined..
to write the darn..arty-cle linked..2..!

[note..the evolutionist/list/QUOTE mining..
at the end..of the article..lol

read the..mined titles..
lol..grabbing at straws]

here is
its own..words

[quote]

Summary.

Resting and maximal levels..of oxygen consumption
of endothermic vertebrates..exceed those of ectotherms
by an average of five-to tenfold.[/quote]

so all of a sudden overnight
the croc/odd-dile critter
that turns into a prarie/weasal/dog like mammal...[re-incarnates?]..

with five fold
the cold blood beasty metabolic..capacity

[quote]Endotherms..have a much broader range of activity
than can be sustained..by this augmented aerobic
metabolism.[/quote]

which your croc/like thrinolo-so-dont
again look at..what is claimed

to jump from reptile..to...
fury weasal/dog..like thingy

an overnight jump
from a croc looking..coldblood skined water beastie
into a warm blood prarie/dog/weasal..looking thing..with fur

[quote]..Ectotherms..are more reliant upon,..
*and limited by,...anaerobic metabolism..during activity.[/quote]

suddenly this majic...lol..evolutionary jump
has mammalian lungs...muscles/extra blood/activities

[where is the lung-fish school THEORY..gone to...
has this been dropped]..lets just recall..these many dead-ends..

im looking..at a croc mutant..that died..[dead ended]..
dont fit nowhere...not a link..lol..to that weaseldoglike mammal fury critter..[morganzolaium]

please note....""A principal..factor
in the evolution of endothermy..was the increase
in aerobic capacities..[lol]..to support..*sustained activity.""

to wit..the ability/capactitie
to affectivly use/utilise..[and a reason]for
an increase in lung capaqctity..with the five fold increase of mitrachondia..of blood cells and 5 time bigger lungs..

[then..the muscles/bones/nerve's...
lol..to do the extra/activity]

little wonder..mr vuko3you..wants the commentary..to end

he like..you got no clue..[but he is..beginning to realise ..ow little he actually knows]]

the thing..re quote minding...[you lot hate..when..its not you]
is us..reading the words..then pointing/out
the lies..your decieving peers wrote..quote/mined

pointing out the very impossability..of the very thing
they are trying to patch over..*now

to keep those..decieved/...deseeved/.qed
let he..who will be decieved...be decieved

lets see..if you listen to..your lord and master..mr vuck3oyou
or persist..in avoiding..*naming names

anyhow..as for not posting..at the other forum
or the topic ending..if you chicken/out..like stezza

think again
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91980#p91980

I am more interested in trying to understand the theory/beliefs that you discuss, rather than correcting your mistakes or explaining facts to you. You critique of modern evolutionary theory is contradictory and lacking in logic. My summary of what I have learnt:

1. You agree that evolution occurs, and this results in the change of organisms over time to produce different species and sub-species.

2. You do not believe that the evolutionary mechanism is capable of producing change on the scale of genus.

3. You believe that 'god' 'creates' new genera and that species within this 'created' genus cannot evolve past a certain point due to DNA repair mechanisms at the species level when the species are "too far from the genus mean".

My critique of this theory/belief:

1. Your critique of genetics (DNA repair) and fossil records as evidence for evolution is not compatible with the theory you discuss, as evolution is proposed to occur through the same mechanism at the sub-species, species and genus level. Thus your arguments are contradict your own beliefs.

2. The statement that a supernatural being interferes with the material world is both unnecessary and non-scientific. As this aspect cannot be proven or disproved, then the requirement for this aspect means that the theory remains in the same category as all other creationist beliefs.

3. The mechanism you propose that prevents evolution into species of a different genus suggests that DNA repair mechanisms vary in efficacy in relation to distance from the genus mean. This is a testable hypothesis. First you would have to define what the 'genus mean' is, and how you would measure 'distance'. Then using a simple program such as http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi you could measure both the variation in the genetic sequence for various genes and well as predict efficacy in DNA repair mechanisms. You can do this yourself from home.

4. You should also state how any species would 'know' the 'genus mean' and their respective distance from it. If this theory is correct then evidence for these measurements would exist in the genome.

Welcome to peer review my friend.

David,

I know what you mean. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…

I realise I’ll never educate OUG. I usually just scroll past his posts but thought I’d actually respond to one of his rants for once.

Just for something different.

OUG,

Thanks for reading the article. I knew you wouldn’t understand it. Or more specifically, I knew you’d scour it for passages that appear to support your views when not read in context of the full article.

<<now his authority is a magazine article>>

No, my authority is not a magazine article and even if it was, it at least contains many references to scientific papers. What does your Bible contain references to?

Nothing.

Just an assertion of truth.

<<[note..the evolutionist/list/QUOTE mining.. at the end..of the article..lol >>

What? The references? Providing references isn’t quote mining. How about you look into what quote mining actually is?

http://tinyurl.com/7xvco6x

<<so all of a sudden overnight the croc/odd-dile critter that turns into a prarie/weasal/dog like mammal...[re-incarnates?]..>>

Overnight? Where in the article did they claim anything happened overnight? If a change like that happened literally overnight, then it would disprove evolution.

You know, it’s this kind of simplistic thinking that gives rise to ignorant comments like, “I’ll believe in evolution when I see a monkey give birth to a human.” You have nothing substantial to bring evolution into question and so you have to assume the science contains overnight changes in order to discredit it.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to your response to Stezza’s fourth point. If it holds, you’ll earn yourself a Nobel prize.

Should be interesting.