BEGINNING..OF THE END..THE/BIRTH..OF MAN..[Theses]
once-upon..a TIME.....A HERD..OF PIGS/FELL-OFF..A CLIFF.
[broken..legs..BLOOD-GUTS....etc]...[THEY WERE..in season]..one or all...were raped..by rogue/male chimps..

BY..FEEDING..OFF THE..ape/feast/FOOD-SOURCE..SHE SURVIVED/CONCEIVED..AND/IN..DUE SEASON..THE PIG BIRTHED..HER/Young[F1]
..[successive rounds of..crossing/back crossing]..would convert any such..chimp/pig-derived genes..into..variants..of their piggy/chimpanzee counterparts...ie..men.

http://www.macroevolution.net/images/holliday-junction-298-480-35.jpg
EXtRACTED..FROM
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-6.html#diffs

And yet,.all of these..converted genes..would be expected..still to code the same types of RNA..and protein..that they did originally. The biochemical/action..of its..protein product..would notin most cases..be greatly altered...(for example,.the various genes./coding for actins,...would still..code/for actins..even after conversion).

As has..already been said,.the main/factor..affecting development of an organism..would be the overall.set of genes defined.by its karyotype,..[HOMEOSTASIS/GENE/QUOTIENT]..and the associated interactions..of genes..and regulatory sequences/present in new combination..or..in different..CONCENTRATES/dosages...[INC divergent..MODIFIED/CHANGED..PROCESS SWITCH on/off times]

A karyotype..in a zygote..can be thought of..as a set of initial/GENETIC/conditions...The life cycle,..of any stable organism is recursive..because.at each stage..of its..life cycle..each of the cells..in the organism applies*..the set of rules..specified by the karyotype..[BIOTA QUOTANT].to produce..the next stage.[Evolution]

What is called..evolution..."development" of an organism is merely a specific portion..of the overall/life cycle..AND RANDOM/CHANCE EVENT/ALLOWING OPPORTUNITIES..[quota].of that organism,..typically the period..during which a zygote..develops into a mature organism.

Now suppose..that a particular zygote..contained a chimpanzee karyotype,..and therefore.the particular 32,887 genes contained in such a karyotype..(this number..is the current estimate..for the number of gene/sequences..POTENTIA..in chimpanzees — see table above),..together with the regulatory sequences..and all of the other molecules.regularly present in that karyotype....Under such circumstances,..the zygote begins dividing..and its descendant cells go through..the series of stages..that ultimately../produce an adult chimp/pig chimera .

However,..suppose some of these/same genes,..regulatory sequences, and..other molecules were deleted,..and that other such genes, sequences..and molecules were added from pig,.so that a different organism with 37,381 genes..(i.e., a human, see table above)..was produced.

Then..the set of rules..governing..EMBRYONIC/development..would have changed...The interactions of genes..and regulatory sequences at each stage of development..would differ because those genes...and regulatory sequences/DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES..would be present..in new RE-combination's and..in different dosages/RATES/STAGES..PROTOTYPICAL/PHENOTYPical/invariant biological/physical--EXPRESSIONS.

At any given stage..of development..some proteins..would be produced in greater quantities,..others in lesser,..so that within the developing organism..each cell would respond differently..from the way it would respond..if it contained..a chimpanzee karyotype.

The differences..at each stage..along the path of development..would cumulatively result in...the production of a human..being instead of a chimpanzee/pig.....at..any..time/..past...

[the beginniNG]

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html

Cytologists now realize..that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts //such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex..“machine”..in the Universe—a machine far more complex than the most complex Cray super computer...We now also realize after a century of research that the eukaryote protozoa thought to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin..in Darwin’s day actually are enormously more complex than the prokaryote cell...Furthermore,/molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is..essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals...

In terms of their basic biochemical design...no living system can be thought of as being primitive..or ancestral with respect to any other system,..nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth(Denton, 1986,.p. 250).

This is a major problem for Darwinism ..because life at the cellular level..generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity as it ascends the evolutionary ladder..from protozoa to humans..The reason that all cells are basically alike..is because the basic biochemical requirements..and constraints for all life are the same:[see orgone energy]

A curious similarity.underlies the seemingly varied forms of life we see on the earth today:.the most central molecular machinery of modern organisms has always been found to be essentially the same...This unity of biochemistry has surely..been one of the great discoveries of the past 100 years ..(Cairns-Smith, 1985, p. 90).

The most critical gap..that must be explained..is that between life and non-life because..Cells and organisms are very complex...[and] there is a surprising uniformity..among living things...We know from DNA sequence analyses that plants and higher animals are closely related, not only to each other,.but to relatively simple single-celled organisms such as yeasts.

Cells are so similar..in their structure.and function that many of their proteins can be interchanged..from one organism to another..For example, yeast cells share with human cells.many of the central molecules that regulate their cell cycle,..and several of the human proteins will substitute in the yeast cell...for their yeast equivalents!..(Alberts,.1992,..p.xii).

2B CTD

The belief that spontaneous regeneration,..while admittedly very rare,.is still attractive..as illustrated by Sagan and Leonard’s conclusion,..“Most scientists''..EDITED./.NEW LINK

Orgone Energy/Wilhelm Reich,..a titan among 20th century scientists, discovered orgone energy in the late 1930's..as an outgrowth of his study of the psychic..and physiological functions of the..*sexual orgasm..[LOKI]..of which he first published studies..in 1923...

His numerous experiments..led him..to a microscopic observation of decaying plant..and animal cells...He noticed that..the cells of decaying grass..or moss,..suspended in water,..would gradually break down..and reform into very small energy vesicles..(only seen at 2,000x and higher magnifications).which he termed bions.

*These bions gave off an intense...blue light and eventually would congregate..into bion heaps,.which-incredibly-later transformed themselves into living protozoa,..such as amoebae or paramecium!!

(This discovery alone..should have earned Reich..the Nobel Prize,..but instead, the government threw him into federal prison on a trumped up charge..and he conveniently died of a 'heart attack' in 1957 after serving less than one year of a two year sentence.)

Reich found that he could obtain much larger quantities of bion vesicles..by first heating the organic..(e.g. blood)..or inorganic substance..(E.g. ocean sand) to a very high temperature and then causing the heated substance to be swollen by immersion it in a specialized liquid medium..This procedure allowed copious quantities of bions to be..'released'..from these substances which were now available.to reform into new living organisms.

By persistent observation,..Reich realized that it was Orgone energy which accounted for the blue lumination..and the biogenensis activity of the bions...He discovered that orgone energy is permeated not only within all living substances,...but it is also found in non living substances (E.g. sand, coal, and soil )..and is ubiquitously present in the atmosphere...The sun being the major 'supplier' of orgone energy.

Reich's discovery of orgone energy..is laid out in two books first published in German, but later translated into English:.."The Function of the Orgasm".and "The Cancer Biopathy" available from http://orgone.org ,.a web site hosted by James DeMeo dedicated to disseminating information about this giant among men.

Joe Cell Construction
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml

IT/SEEMS..the powrs/that be..dont want...this info on the petrol thread
SO/PUT IT HERE[link from ismise]
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/Joe_Cell.html
Download PDF document
http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/download/Joe_Cell_explanation.pdf
download PDF
References

Joe Cell interview Peter Stevens of Byron New Energy:
http://pesn.com/2006/04/27/9600265_Make_Run_Joe_Cell/

Charge compression, implosion physics in water, Daniel Winter: http://www.soulinvitation.com/watercharged/

Gravitational thrust produced by capacitors which accelerate charge by recursion
http://www.soulinvitation.com/thrust/

Hydrogen bonding and memory effect of water:
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

Icosahedral water clusters. Martin Chaplin:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/icosahedra.html

Dr. Emoto’s hexagonal water:
http://www.hado.net/indigo_water.html

Torsion fields, Nikolai Kozyrev:
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm

E.H.D. Flying Sourcer, Jean Louis Naudin:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ehdfsv3.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ehdfscs.htm

Vortex gravity control, Paul Richard Price, 2004 :
http://www.americanantigravity.com/paul-price-article.shtml

Source charge problem, Tom Bearden:
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Source%20Charge%20Problem10.doc

Electrogravitics Systems, Paul La Violette
http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-ES.html

Biefeld-Brown effect:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/Lifter-Article.pdf

Blaze labs research, lifters in the vacuum
http://blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asp

The electric universe:
http://www.holoscience.com

Cymatics, Hans Jenny
http://www.cymaticsource.com/

Woutje Winkler-Prins and Donave water:
http://www.nulpuntenergie.net/dng/donave.htm

Sorry for my late entry, but I would like to add my opinion following this article. The author claims he wishes to champion proper scientific reasoning, while aiming to promote an understanding of the relationship between religion and science. I wouldn't quarrel with these aims, and don't know anyone who would so wish.

Yet he far exaggerates evolution by referring to it as a foundational scientific truth. Far from being an established fact, it remains unconvincing to many an academic and appears spurious to the man on the street.  

Exactly what benefit has the story of molecules-to-man evolution brought to human knowledge and achievement? This article attempts to supply not even one example. Yet evolution's man gains are apparently philosophical, allowing atheists more comfort and restful sleep.

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

As a theory of history, evolution is beyond the regular type of experiment that has brought any practical advancement. Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” 

No need to apologize, Dan S de Merengue. It's always good to see you here.

>>Sorry for my late entry...<<

And thanks for introducing a new name into the evolution/creation mix.

>>Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself.<<

I am interested, though, to learn where he fits into your own young-earth creation worldview, given that he quite clearly accepts the general theories of how life has evolved...

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/marc-kirschner-and-john-gerhart

...and indeed, has clarified for us some of the aspects of Darwinian theory that have remained relatively poorly formed, into the "facilitated variation" concept.

But I do agree that the article itself lacks any kind of intellectual rigour, and is simply a vehicle that advertises some kind of self-congratulatory, semi-formal talkfest, that has no point except to promote itself. Sadly, our underemployed world is full of such well-meaning, but irrelevant, groupuscules, all competing for a fleeting moment in the sun.