THE NON CHANGING FACE..OF NATURE

EXTRACTED/FROM..LINK

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.]

if..The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.

IF/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 DARWINIAN/MICRO-EVOLVING CHANGES/*theory."

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message861599/pg1 "As more and more genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were routinely swapping genetic material with other species - often across huge taxonomic distances".

" 'There's promiscuous exchange of genetic information across diverse groups,' says Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine."

"As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web.

In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that 'the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree'.11

'The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature,' he says."

"Recent research suggests that the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either."

"A team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish.

This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer."24
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-infertility.html
"HGT [horizontal gene transfer] has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows."

"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California, Davis... compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes.

In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed."

"The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories."

Dear OUG,

Spurious, spurious. Red herrings abounding.

Firstly, the author in that link of yours (godlikeproductions...) is a dyed-in-the-wool 'nong' (or, 'Twit', if you would prefer), harping on about conspiracies, and with a distinctly unhelpful (and unhealthy) predilection for 'cherry picking' information, and for the dissemination of misinformation and unsubstantiated 'rumour mongering'.

As for the rest of your non-argument, there is plenty of evidence of 'useless' evolution - or rather, the 'abandonment' of unhelpful evolutionary traits - such as the presence of 'vestigial' appendages in many species - including vestigial toes in a cow's foot, dew claws in dogs, and the occasional birth of a human infant with a vestigial tail. (Consult any reliable source and you will find many examples of such 'evolution'. Maybe try: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_vestigial_organ#slide=1)

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the skeletal structure of a whale, and compare it to that of an elephant, rhino or human.
Whales obviously 'evolved' from a land-dwelling mammal - since all mammals can only have evolved from land-dwelling forerunner species, unless you may be fool enough to think that such an identical degree of 'parallel evolution' is likely to have occurred in both ocean and land environments. And, don't stop at whales, look also at the skeletal structures of dolphins and seals.
Also, do you find any fish-like creatures inhabiting the land? Didn't think so.

TBC>

Continued:

As for finding identical DNA strands in different, non-related, species: Why should it be strange that different species have, at some stage in their evolution, occasioned upon a genetic mutation which has also occurred, quite naturally, and quite by chance, in various other non-related species? Trial and error is, after all, the nub and the essence of evolution.

As for current efforts, or trials, to emulate evolution by selective breeding: It should not be forgotten that the evolution of species has taken many millions of years. It has been a long, and interminably slow process, and has relied upon actual genetic mutation, and the long-haul testing of every such mutation. Cross-breeding of wheat, or of any other plant, may at best produce a new 'strain', but would take many millions of such crosses over millions of 'generations' to luck upon a variant so different to the original as to represent a genuine new species. (And, for any variant to be correctly classified as a new 'species', it must be capable of reproduction and long-term survival without external interference or assistance. One unique 'lab rat' does not a species make.)

The fossil record DOES record evolution, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to mammal, and so on, with many 'intermediate' forms being found and recorded. Why is there not a 'total' record? If you examine the conditions under which fossils have been 'preserved' for us to find it will be clear why there are in fact so few for us to find, rather than why there aren't more.

Open your eyes and your mind and the truth will astound you.
Stick your head in the sand and life will pass you by.

saltyquote..<<..So,..why would God..have fashioned..genetic mutation as..part and parce.l of almost..every species,..if not..to enable species'..evolution?>>

dear salty..god repAIRS/NOT MUTATES
its not..via mutation/THAt we..get great..evolutionary jumps..BUT MAYBE..BY THINGS..LIKE HGT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

but..lets go back...to your according..[micr-]evolution..to mutation
[ITS TOO..EASY TO ROLL/OF.. THE TONGUE..UNTHINKINGLY]..mutation basically is error/..AND THERE/ARE..SO MANY MEANS...THAT mutated errors..get fixed ..thats why/species mating..with/the same species survive..billions OF YEARS...[VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED/but..by MAKINGS/OR BEAKS..as REVEALED..BY MANY/sub-species][within/GENUS]
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mutation+repair+mechanisms&

BUT..Why bother..your not intresTED..IN ACTUALLY LOOKING..AT INFO
and...im over pointing out the error/of your unlinked personifications..at the people..whos links..i post..[that/you..cant;refute/thus..insult]

then you..put up..TWO VESTIDual/s..no doudt to try tO REFute..the 'nongs words[darwin?..

<<..IF/So every plant..and animal,..living or fossil,..should be covered inside..and out...with useless growths and have parts under construction.>>..PRESENTING TWO/REFUTES NOTHING.

<<>>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.>>[MORE/THAN..two?

fact IS..THERE..SHOULD BE..TRILLIONS..PF MICRo-MUTATIONS..[AND THERE ARE..MANY MUTATIONAL ERRORS..IN Each of us]..but thanks be..to repair mechanisms..YOU WOULD NEVER GUESS..[AS darwin himself SAID..RE PIGEONS..BEING IN A GENERALIST POPULATION..FOR a thousand years would SIMPLY HOMOGENIZE..BACK INTO Wildtype blue rockdove
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/huntleyloft/BlueQuestion.html

BUT ITS CLEAr youR IGNORING THAT YOU CANT REFUTE
to refute pathetic points like DEW CLAWS..WHEN BY YOUR OWN THEORY EVERyone should have imperfection..AS WE ALL MICRO EVOLVE INTO SUPER APES..mutated dna is bull..READ THE SELF REPAIR MECHANISMS..ANYHOW HAVE A NICE LIFE.

YOU GOT FAITH..not knowing..as reveaLED BY YOUR LACK OF SIMPOLY NAMING NAMES And revealing the first life from non life..and the first single cell..GENUS..FIRST MULTICELL GENUS

LAST FISH/Genus..reveal either..or the scaled MAMMAL..OR A FURRY FISH
WHAT WAS THAT FIRST..WARM BOOOD FISH.../LIZARD THING Without shoulder blades..that BRED..A..COLD/BLOOD SALAMANDER..THAT BRED...A FROG THAT BRED A BIRD..that bred all mammals

or that wolf/like mammal..that became..LOL..a whale[MEARLY BECAUSE A WHAlE MAKEs..claim to a pelvis..THE INSANITY/OF THE STEPS..HAVE HUGE GAPS

AS A PLAIN COMMON name..[TREE]..woulD REVEAL/THUS THE USE..OF SECRET WORDS..THAT CONCEAL..,huge Gaps..IN UA/THEORY

name..what mammal.WAS BEFORE THE WHALE[GO ON LOOK ..AT THE DAMM THING
REALISE HOW INSANE..THE THINGS ARE..THAT YOU SAY/name-call over.

OUG,

Whale evolution is one of the most accurately recorded examples of evolution we have and yet, when Saltpetre raises it with you, what’s your response?

<<or that wolf/like mammal..that became..LOL..a whale[MEARLY BECAUSE A WHAlE MAKEs..claim to a pelvis …>>

Merely?

This is how dishonest you are on this topic. You paint a false picture of the story. According to you, some scientists looked at the whale’s pelvis and said, “Ya know what? I reckon this this evolved from a… um… a… a… a WOLF-like creature. Yes, yes, that sounds good!”

What about the vestigial legs? What about the toe bones in the flippers?

Then you use the tiresome old ‘gaps’ argument…

<<THE INSANITY/OF THE STEPS..HAVE HUGE GAPS>>

Very small gaps, as there naturally would be.

We could take a photo of a particular person every day of their life and there’s still going to be gaps. That doesn’t prove that the photos are of different people. Fossilisation is an extremely unlikely occurrence and yet you creationists still complain of gaps found in some remarkably smooth transitions recorded in the strata. Worse still, creationists are so shifty and dishonest that, every time a gap is filled, they simply point to the two smaller gaps either side of that newly discovered fossil and then gloat that there are now two gaps instead of one.

Regarding to whale evolution, we have Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, Mysticetes, etc…

Here’s a challenge for you, OUG… Try explaining why evolution makes such accurate predictions as to where we should find transitional fossils if it’s all such a crock. Why is it that a “fraudulent” science (as you would have us believe) is able to make such accurate predictions that we can know where to find (and end up finding) the transitional fossils that we need to find in order to complete the evolutionary picture? That’s some very careful placement of fossils laid down by an apparently very deceiving and misleading god of yours.

Here’s a little video for you that demonstrates the absurdity of your creationist position… http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=65c_1243098435

Enjoy.