salty/quote..<<..No wonder people remain confused, for the further one delves into the book the more it reveals its relevance directly to the times, knowledge and conditions appertaining way back then (whenever that was), and that certainly couldn’t have been anywhere near the actual ‘beginning’.>>

of course..IT WAS TOLD ..BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN..
but the beginning lies far baCK IN TIME

BUT SEE THE AMASING THING..in the beginning/pre the big bang
all was void..blackness..[NOTHING]..FROM NUTHIn came something
THEY CALLED 'THE LIGHT'..[IE ENERGY RELEASED FROM ITS MASS..AND SCIENCE CALLS IT THE BIG BANG

its THE LOGIC OF IT ALL
Science/Has lucy..they begat eve..as the means theY MUST HAVE BEEN BEGOTTEN..thus needed to make eve[science tells us is [XX]..from adam[Xy]..[it wouldnt work[ie dna cloning from a riB/THAT SIMPLY DOUBLED UP ON THE x..AND TOSSING AWAY THE 'Y'..

THe logic of having light first/that sustains life..simply by light
its all more deeply thunk out than..these ignorant could reasonable be expected to think

THUS ARISES DIVINE INSPIRATION..FROM the illumined ones
the fallen angels fallen from heaven..we judge by our works.

AS ONE/WHO ON OCCASION READ MY OWN WORDS..im amazed anyone could make sense of it[let alone SOMEHOW I WRITE IT ONE LETTER SPELLED OUT TO ME AT A TIME

I IMAGINE PICTURE Language communes much thE SAME WAY
I SEE A Giff of say a giraffe/MY GUIDES SAy..what it is by infilling its proper context with the REED..and THE THREE DUCKS..[HOw that falls OUT OF MY MINDS EYE ..into writing..ASTOUNDS me]..THAT OTHERS DO IT BETTER...well thats great too.

as the koran says..make first one like it
and thing IS MOST People dont got that level of inspiration
they chased their guiding SPIRITS AWAY LONG AGO..AND NOW LEND THEIR IGNORANCE'S FROM..those living bY ROTE/creed..and greed..if some GETS VERIFIED..THEN WHO GETs the credit due..[its CERTAINLY/..NOT ME]..But you..who gave the first clue/..that saw my minds EYE..FORM A REPLY..cause..thats how I DO.

Well, OUG, it's been a fun ride, but now it's time to get real, or else to wind it up.

Your post of 11:16:23AM today, 30 March, examined the science behind the processes by which aquatic/marine vertebrates may have adapted to life in a terrestrial environment; and possible parallels in the development of arthropods.

Now, that was a good start - trying to understand the very slow and very complex processes by which early life (vertebrate and arthropod) may have made the transition from water to land.

But then, your next post (of 11:50:21AM) reverts to all the B/S and ill-concocted ramblings about xx/xy, Divine Inspiration, fallen angels, and other visions and cacophony of your 'mind's eye'. A complete load of horse-feathers.

The great majority of world theologians, of all persuasions, accept the Theory and Science of Evolution, and accept that Genesis (and many other parts of the Good Book) are allegorical rather than explicit or implicit 'fact'. You, on the other hand, rattle on about 'Creation' as though there was some genuine evidence for it (let alone 'proof'). But then, You don't need any proof, or evidence, you just 'believe' what only a load of deluded Americans are willing to believe - the Creationist Myth!

I tried to show how Genesis could only have been 'received from God', and passed-around and written down, a helluva long time after the beginnings of 'Life on Earth'. It, Genesis, is little more than a 'bedtime story', very much akin to our Indigenous People's 'Rainbow Serpent' and other such stories.
If the most knowledgeable theologians accept Evolution as 'Science' and as the True Means by which 'life' has developed on Earth (including our own development), And accept that Genesis is only a 'story', Why Can't You?

Accepting and believing in Evolution does not mean abandoning God, it just means seeing and seeking God in a different way, in the way we live, the way we relate to others and to this magnificent habitat we are 'blessed' to inhabit, and in appreciating the sheer extraordinary wonder of 'the cosmos' and all it contains.

In biology and specifically, genetics, the term hybrid has several meanings, all referring to the offspring of sexual reproduction.[1]

1. In general usage, hybrid is synonymous with heterozygous: any offspring resulting from the mating of two genetically distinct individuals
2. a genetic hybrid carries two different alleles of the same gene
3. a structural hybrid results from the fusion of gametes that have differing structure in at least one chromosome, as a result of structural abnormalities
4. a numerical hybrid results from the fusion of gametes having different haploid numbers of chromosomes
5. a permanent hybrid is a situation where only the heterozygous genotype occurs, because all homozygous combinations are lethal.

From a taxonomic perspective, hybrid refers to:

1. Offspring resulting from the interbreeding between two animals or plants of different species.[2] See also hybrid speciation.
2. Hybrids between different subspecies within a species

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

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/gestation.htm

Mule

*Most mules are sterile.

A female mule that has estrus cycles and thus, in theory, could carry a fetus, is called a "molly" or "Molly mule," though the term is sometimes used to refer to female mules in general. Pregnancy is rare, but can occasionally occur naturally as well as through embryo transfer.

Sterile hybrids are not species in their own right.
Synonyms
Equus mulus

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). The size of a mule and work to which it is put depends largely on the breeding of the mule's dam. Mules can be lightweight, medium weight, or even, when produced from draught horse mares, of moderately heavy weight.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal_hybrids#Mammalian_hybrids

salty..<<..If the most knowledgeable theologians accept Evolution as 'Science' and as the True Means by which 'life' has developed on Earth (including our own development), And accept that Genesis is only a 'story', Why Can't You?>>

WHERE GREAT CHUNKS OF DNA NEED..TO BE ADDED
EXTREME OUT CROSS ALONE COULD PROVIDE 'NEW'..INFO
WE CAN HAVE CROSSOVER/THAT CHANGES LOCATION..BUT BY PAIRING IF OFTEN OF NULL AFFECT[And the few cases it has affect..LETHALITY [DEATH]..by FATAL recessives..THE POSSIBILITIES ARE LIMITED

but in a world of hybrids..THE INTER-RELATEDNESS WOULD ALLOW EVOLUTION/but just as Darwin..said re the blue barred pigeon's..MICRO/EVOLUTIONS[AND DITTO 'DOGS/CATs/breeds of sheep goATS HORSE-BREEDS GOAT BREEDS RABBIT BREEDS EVEN FRUIT-FLY 'BREEDS...ALL HAVE A SLOW Reversion to the [+]wildtype..that IN THE CASE OF DOGS =WOLVES..AND IN PIGIONS = THE BLUE BAR ROCK-DOVE..[OF COURSE DOMINANTS ARE EASIER TO detect than recessives..but one a domminant gene is gone..iTS FULLY GONE/BUT RECESSIVES CAN LIE HIDDEN..FOR MILLENNIAL/TILL IT Finally recombines WITH ITSELF AND GAINS EXPRESSION

YOUR OWN THEORY..SAYS salamanders frogs evolved INTO TURTLES BIRDS ETC..WHATS THE BIG ISSUE WITH THE PIG ANCESTOR MATING WITH A HUMAN ANCESTOR..LONG AGO..[IE A TRUE MISSING Link]..YET..STILL/THE..GAPS/ARE..HUGE.

chIMP TO CHIMP..ONLY PRODUCES CHIMPS
A HUMAN TO HUman..never..can produce a CHIMP[..SURE WE GOT CLOSE]

anyhow..i know thAT SCIENCE HASNT..ONE PURE EXAMPLE FOR evolution..of new genus..all this guff of little changes only ensure the new species IS FIXED..IM NOT GOING TO BE FOOLED BY STONES THAT LOOK LIKE THINGS[phenotype/BUT..NOT GENOTYPE]...[SCIENCE..NEEDS PROOF.

[YOU CANT ARGUE THE FACTS]..SCIENCE Never..evolved a new genus[and gene splicing means you have to add IN A VIRUS[ie not just the genes/only virus plus the gene]

WE TRUST THESE..SCAMErS FAR TOO MUCH
Two dogs will only breed two dogs
unless..one wasnt a dog

thats the only place the EXTRA NEW GENES CAN COME FROM
even virus cant add in that extra info..[I RESENT THE UNSPOKEN THING..THAT SELECTUS IS IMPLIED TO HAVE ONLY MATED WITH SELECTUS..AND APE ONLY WITH APE..WE NEED BE HONEST MUCH HYBRIDIZATION Lies at the roots of evolving..we are more interrelated than we wish to believe.

hiding/behind..just/any truth wont help
if/itS SIMPLE AVOIDANCE..its...not science.

Short sequence repeats..are distributed throughout the genome..(King 1997)...Presumably.. their most probable means of expression will vary,..depending on their location.

In proteins[edit]

In mammals,..20% to 40% of proteins..contain repeating sequences of amino acids caused by short sequence repeats..(Marcotte 1998)...Most of the short sequence repeats..within protein-coding portions of the genome...have a repeating unit of three nucleotides,[..since that length will not cause frame-shift mutation (Sutherland 1995).

Each trinucleotide repeating sequence...is transcribed into a repeating series of the same amino acid...In yeasts,..the most common repeated amino acids are glutamine, glutamic acid, asparagine, aspartic acid and serine...These repeating segments can affect the physical and chemical properties of proteins,*.with the potential for producing gradual and predictable changes in protein action..(Hancock 2005).

For example,length changes in tandemly repeating regions..in the Runx2 gene lead to difference..in facial length in domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris),..with an association between longer sequence lengths and longer faces (Fondon 2004)..This association also applies to a wider range of Carnivora species (Sears 2007)..

*Length changes in polyalanine tracts within the HoxA13 gene are linked to Hand-Foot-Genital Syndrome,..a developmental disorder in humans..(Utsch 2002). Length changes in other triplet repeats..are linked to more than 40 neurological diseases in humans..(Pearson 2005).

Evolutionary changes from replication slippage..also occur in simpler organisms...For example, microsatellite length changes are common within surface membrane proteins in yeast,..providing rapid evolution in cell properties..(Bowen 2006). Specifically,..length changes in the FLO1 gene control the level of adhesion..to substrates (Verstrepen 2005).

Short sequence repeats also provide rapid evolutionary change to surface proteins in pathenogenic bacteria;..this may allow them to keep up with immunological changes in their hosts..(Moxon 1994)..[This is known as the Red Queen hypothesis.(Van Valen 1973).

Length changes..in short sequence repeatsin a fungus (Neurospora crassa)..control the duration of its circadian clock cycles (Michael 2007).

Gene regulation[edit]

Length changes of microsatellites..within promoters and other cis-regulatory regions can also change gene expression quickly, between generations.

The human genome*..contains many (>16,000)..short sequence repeats in regulatory regions,..which provide ‘tuning knobs’ on the expression of many genes..(Rockman 2002)...ape?/pig?/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsatellite
http://www.biophp.org/minitools/microsatellite_repeats_finder/demo.php
http://pgrc.ipk-gatersleben.de/misa/misa.html
http://www.rub.de/spezzoo/cm/cm_phobos.htm

So, OUG, what are you getting from your research?

Any breakthroughs?