i look-at-it...as only like a virus
a packet..of instructions..to do as it was programed to do

not any different..than a virus..in ya computer
as previously said..god/programed..the cell..into becoming an eye
and golly-gee-gosh..it became,,,an eye..[or eyes..or whatever]

i wish you would quote sources

what do those..who done-it..claim it proved?

see we been putting genes of salmon..into strawberries
and monkey/aids-genes..into poli-vacine

there is nothing new about scimera..[i forget the terms]

but to say its proof-of..evolution..of fish..into mice
thats still a long-bow...

it is what it-is..its man playing..god
to convince/children..their tricks...mean..something
clearly not..demon-strated..by their act

macro-evolution..is pure con-jecture...
spin at its finest..[worst]

we are capable of much..trickery
the trouble being..you got the meaning..
of their/trick...contextually...incorrect

it dont prove anything..to do with changing/evolving into new genus

and if they claim it does
give a link

we can expose..the root of the issue
get to where..the error..occured

"i wish you would quote sources" - OUG

I did: the programme The Cell by BBC Knowledge (written by Dr Adam Rutherford). I don't think any of our regulars would accuse me of being short on citations, when required.

FYI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdd3h3fq_7U&feature=related

Will you please reciprocate with an equally reputable independent source (not a fundie site) pressing your argument? Here, I mean a documentary or university production. Thanks.

take your pick

http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=cell%20grafting%20wingbuds

mary rawles..wrote a great/book on it
of which i copied/only..chapter..vi..the integumentary system

then got side-tracked..by harpers
[1904..ferilisation..and early development..of a pigeons egg]

which/led to beatrice garbers..agrigation invitro..of dissassosiated/cells..[journal exp zool..pages 339/350

then lillie/fr...1951..induction of regional specificity..anat rec/111..36/37

mate there is volumes of the stuff arround
google..transplantation..of upper mastio\\oid/lip from..one anphibianm..into another

or google up the chart showing deriviation..of vairious body parts..by progressive differentiation..and divergent speciation

learn about the primitive streak/the noto-cord[from which they would have needed to steal your eye-cells

read like i had to the jopurnal of morphology/biol..bulliten..american journal of annatomy..avian genetics..

heck even charles darwins letters
try letter 146..[nov 20th..1862]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8W0nNJk1-8AC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=darwin+letter+146..%5Bnov+20th..1862%5D&source=bl&ots=DHs8PP9hB_&sig=YdZ7WsiEOdokfV1-YcQIoTHmwbY&hl=en&ei=_CyYTMCQA4WWvAO85qXwDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

where he wrote ''what i believe'...
[the bit..about breeding pigeons..for 10,000 years

note..

..'NO NEW..VARIETIES WOULD ARISE'...

get it?

as he further explained ..
there is maintained

a species...[+]..wild type
..in the wild...

thus we got cannus[wild dog[+]
catus[wild cat[+]
etc etc
not mouse/fly..at us
its [pure nonsense..CAUSE YOU CANT EVOLVE it
you can make-one...by doing frankenstein abuses
to two of gods creatures..plus the many thousands of unsuccesfull..tries

but mate that was the old me
now i know the vile...i was reading about..in the name of science
and you want me tyo make a map for you...lol

mate take my experience
realise..the lie of evolution[macro-evolution]
as propounded by decievers and frankenstein proffessors..breeding anti=biotic super bacteria...killing people every-day..in your local hospital...

[why cause insane wanna-be..professors
want them infected..before they..try to heal]

when they..and their students
really/..literally/..got unclean-hands
full of mutated antibiotic/resistant...bacvteria

but are so blinded/
in their delusions..of evolutions grandure

or they adore..the god-less theory..

and their/sick-bacteria..
does the rest

best we know/now dead aint dead

Try again Dan,

You are not "making judgements". You have no basis for your views except creationist dogma, this is demonstrated in the shallow nature of your assertions. Creationism is not accepted by the vast majority of scientists, and even fewer biologists. Creationist Dogma is not accepted by mainstream religions as mentioned in the original article.

I might "get" the same accusation, but it would not apply. You deliberately try to use assertions in fields you are unfamiliar with to flog creationist propaganda. That's dishonest.

The "debate" is trivial, creationism is bogus and promoted by misinformation. The vanishingly few creationists at any high level of attainment are successful to the extent they leave creationism at the door. The Clergy Letter Project mentioned in the original article makes it clear that biblical literalism is not a feature of intellectual attainment in mainstream religion or theology. The higher the attainment, the fewer the fundies.

You attempt to imply science does not meet or exceed court standards. Courts use science to determine matters of fact, science does not so use courts. Court formalism and coercive investigation embarrasses creationist silliness, Dover USA comes to mind.

Falsifiability of creationist claims was certainly a red herring, glad you agree. Reptiles to birds is easily false Were bird fossils to be found that preceded reptile fossils and to not share such anatomical features as are available to analyse. Protobird fossils continue to be found, are younger than reptiles and share anatomical features.

What "limits" do you suggest to heritable variability? How many variations are permitted? How would *you* know the limits? Seems you are back to dishonestly making assertions from ignorance.

Falsified evolutionary claims have no impact on confirmed ones, and lead to creationist ideas only in the minds of creationists, get over yourself.

Regarding "sudden appearance" vs "smooth descent", why do you assume "smooth" must also be constant? We know it is not. If evolution is fast enough to raise "new forms" within a short geological interval, why would this be incompatible with the fossil record? Gould is accessible and comprehensible, remedy your ignorance.

Rusty

[Deleted at commenter's request. Abusive, but no penalty because he took immediate action.]

hi/rusty..why do/you attack..dan?
and not simply..prove your case?

i would suggest/cause you got none..

lets reply/what you-do..post..

quote..you wrote<<You attempt/to..imply science..does/not meet..or exceed court/standards.>>then admit..science..dont use/courts...lol

<<Courts..use science..to determine-matters of fact,
science does/not..so use courts.>>>no it uses kangeroo/courts..called peer revieuw...lol

then...go back...lol..<<Court-formalism and coercive-investigation embarrasses..creationist silliness,>>lets presume..your talking here..about one famouse court-case[eh]

<<Dover..USA..comes to mind.>>
there..the isue was...about teaching..creation...as a/science

it didnt...judge..EVOLUTIONS/validity..
it was purelly...about...teaching/religion...as part/of the science-curriculum...

but you..nor not-one..of your-peers..knows this
cause/you..NEVER/read..the ACTUAL-trial..transcripts

i posted them..here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=184&t=3225&hilit=evolution

noting no-one..has rebutted..the case
cause evolution...wasnt on triasl..NOR VALIDATED
but such..is the/deciet..ignorants think it were/was

<<Proto-bird/fossils..continue to be found,>>>..lol..yet..IN THE SAME STRATA..modern-birds..are also found...see the joke?

'teeth/and claws..do not a lizard/make'[sir/gaven-de-beer]
six..experts..called..'it'..a lizard
8 said/it was..a transitional
thirty-seven..[including huxley]..classified it..a bird

are younger than reptiles and share anatomical features.

<<What.."limits"..do/you suggest..to heritable-variability?>>
they..must/be-able..to breed/naturally..with both..their ancestors..and young,...ie..be/the same-genus

ie heritable/variability...must be HERIT-ABLE

<<How many variations/are permitted?>>as many as god/put-in..to their genus

<<How would..*you*/know..the limits?>>>god set/them
its more about/you../proving your case..by quoting..SCIENCE..get it?

<<Seems you/are back-to dishonestly..making assertions/from ignorance.>>>...no..it/seems..YOU_ARE..!

<<Falsified/evolutionary-claims>>>loll..se the joke
YOU AINT EVEN GOT ONE...lol

thus of coyurse...lol..thery...<<have no/impact..on confirmed ones,>>lol..cause/thats...lol..the...SAME_THING....lol

to quote..you in-context..lol
''and lead-to..evolu-tionist/ideas
only-in..the minds of EVILU-tionists,..get over..yourself."

<<..why do you assume.."smooth"[decent]..must also-be constant?>>
cause..your slanding..on the low ground.;..[insults/name calkling]
its a slippery-slope...lol..[decent..means down-wards...lol]

<<If/evolution..is fast..enough to/raise.."new forms"..within a short geological..interval,>>

it..is only with-in..its own genus..[get it genious]...
your/talking..about natural variation..WITHIN genus
not out-of genus...get it?

darwins finches..fluctuate..between long-beaked...and short-beaked..depending on dry..or wet seasons
BUT ALL..REMAIN FINCHES

<<why/would-this..be incompatible with the fossil record?>>
because..they dont...LOOK..like finches[pheno-typically]

BUT..geno-typically..THEY ARE...finches...[get-it?]

to quote..you again
''remedy your..ignorance.'

my addendum..is PROVE/validate..your case
but you cant..cause you/got..no higher standing
get-off..ya high-horse..and present fact*..not opinion

you claim..science
WELL PRESENT...SOME
you havnt..presented much so far