funny/how..EVOLUTIONISTS..CAN MICRO-EVOLVE ANYTHING/..BUT THEIR THINKING..extracteD FROM
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message861599/pg1

All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction".
That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.

If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.

The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.
]
So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.

It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.

Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.

He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message861599/pg1 Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes." (Devonian).7 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."7

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs.

That was supposedly 65 million years ago.

Here it is today, alive and unchanged.

Where is the evolution?

The platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf
Yet nobody calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks.
http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952
Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-infertility.html
However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths.

That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree.

Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series.

The same is true for the famous horse series. Each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction.

There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found.

The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time.

In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series.

But it’s not just the outward appearance of the chromosomes that bears a resemblance to birds. Mammals like us (eutherians) or kangaroos (marsupials) all determine sex by having different sets of sex chromosomes. Getting a pair of the two big X’s makes a female. An X and a little Y, makes a male. Birds on the other hand have an opposite system. Two copies of a big Z chromosome make you a male, while a Z plus a little w, makes you a female.

But not all animals have different sex chromosomes. In many species of reptile for instance, males and females have the same chromosomes. Their sex is determined by temperature.

If you’re a turtle egg, in cool conditions you’re a male; if it warms up you’re female. the chromosome pair had to stay different, and so they drifted further and further apart, till the point that you have the almost unrecognisable pairs of X and Y or Z and W.

So what do we see in the platypus? For starters, they have ten sex chromosomes! Females have five pairs of X and males have five X and five Y. It’s a finding that nicely aligns with the theory that sex chromosomes evolved from ordinary ones.

the platypus sex chromosome is very much like the big sex chromosome of the bird – the Z. its clear that the platypus X-5 and the chcken Z, share hundreds of genes; they’re virtually the same [chromosome].”

For many researchers this is totally confounding. Birds and platypus are on very different branches of the evolutionary tree.

But Graves suspects their common ancestor may well have had both systems of sex determination: XY and ZW, and that their offspring may have opted for one way or the other, or even both. It was she says, “not supposed to be able to happen”. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/the-platypus-unravelled/ But the Japanese frog Rana rugosa, shows it can happen. Some populations are XY; others are ZW. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/pdf/nature06936.pdf http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

there is a well known..way[ta0]..to learning
and thats by deduction..seeing what 'is'..and explaining,,'why it is so'..or asking why it is not so

so the most important..question..is evolution
one cvell to may..or many cells devolving into ever smaller /more viral deadly micro[deduction says before many..we must have one]..why is it..that those who name..everything/by itsd 'evolution'step/FEATRURE ETC.

WHAT WAS PROTO*UNO ORIGONATUM..[THE FIRST NON-[LIFE]
And what was alpha/BETA DUO DECENTUM[FIRST EVOLUTION..INTO LIFE]

thing is..this first life/must have been most likely to succed via back cross..[but this law applies to all of em]..ie equally to every evolution..from that time on

thus mans true decendant..is most likely to produce living backcross
and most likely validate its fettility[but you can bet ya boots..that wont look like either]..the point being

the first..life..crossbred like mad
infinite possibility provided the next 'evolutionary step'
then the inbreeding..that sets up the next evolution..till the next inbreeding fixates the next etc

that every breed exists..is the result of that dreaded 'inbreeding'..from a hybred..that maaged a fertile backcross
thus there must be a common ancestor..of pig and chimp..who 'evolved..just enough that the extreme out cross hybred pig chimp adam..survived..and mated with his grand children..so long as the back cross cant happen/evolution cant 'evolve nuthin...full stop..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16166&page=10

SCIENCE=INTERPRitation/peer 're-viuew
thus..as evolution CLAIMS 'SCIENCE-method'
and as science long ago sold us out..here..more proof to reveal the feet of clay

Why vaccines spread disease;
an in-depth analysis of flawed vaccination science
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2014/04/10/why-vaccines-spread-disease-an-in-depth-analysis-of-flawed-vaccination-science/

(NaturalNews) Infectious diseases that the system insists have been mostly eradicated due to the advent of vaccines are starting to reemerge, with much of the blame for this being levied on the unvaccinated, who are automatically assumed to be the culprits.

But a deeper look into the history of vaccines, how they work and what level of long-term protection they truly provide reveals that these golden calves of modern medicine are actually the vehicles through which infectious disease is being spread, with vaccinated individuals as the primary disease carriers.

we cant trust guys with science..theories elevated to godhead sacredness.sacred cows..don't give meat,,nor milk,,science makes a poor god.

where did them damm vaccination blurbs threads go to

Mitochondrial Eve..is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2].Unlike her biblical namesake,...she was not the only living human female of her time..*However,..her female contemporaries, except her mother,..failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day*..Matrilineal descent goes back to our mothers, to their mothers, until all female lineages converge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
Branches are identified by one or more unique markers which give a mitochondrial "DNA signature" or "haplotype" (e.g. the CRS is a haplotype)...Each marker is a DNA base-pair that has resulted from an SNP mutation.Scientists sort mitochondrial DNA results into more or less related groups, ..with more*or less*..recent common ancestors.
....

This leads to the construction of a DNA family tree where the branches are in biological terms clades,..and the common ancestors such as Mitochondrial Eve sit at branching points in this tree.

..Major branches are said to define a haplogroup (e.g. CRS belongs to haplogroup H),..and large branches containing several haplogroups are called "macro-haplogroups".

A haplotype (from the Greek:"onefold, single, simple")..in genetics is a combination of alleles...(DNA sequences)..at adjacent locations (loci)..on a chromosome..that are inherited..together..if any occurred

The mitochondrial clade..which Mitochondrial Eve defines..Is the species Homo sapiens sapiens itself,..or at least the current population or "chronospecies"..as it exists today...In principle, earlier Eves can also...be defined going beyond the species,*for example one who is ancestral..to both modern humanity..and Neanderthals,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype..

*or,..further back,..an "Eve" ancestral..to all members of genus Homo and ..chimpanzees in genus Pan..

According to current nomenclature, Mitochondrial Eve's haplogroup..was within mitochondrial haplogroup L because..this macro-haplogroup contains all surviving human mitochondrial lineages today,..