Forget it OUG, Evolution is a fact, proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and those who try to suggest that all species were/are/have-been 'created' out of thin air, or by some magical 'design' (design from what to what, and if not from thin air then from what, dust?) ARE either very badly misguided or simply delusional.

Fear what you may believe without substantiation, because truth lives in a solid castle built on demonstrable evidence, whilst 'faith' in unsubstantiated dogma or 'tradition' is a construct of someone's imagination designed to quell individual inquisitiveness and thereby to hold the gullible and misguided as hostages to their fear of the unknown or the unattainable.

Knowledge is power; superstition is variously a yoke or a balm to the mass-ignorance of the uneducated and the downtrodden.

Magicians can pull rabbits out of a hat, but to think God wastes his/her time pulling new species out of a hat to sprinkle them across this Earth is an insult to God's purpose (whatever 'God's purpose' may eventually prove to be).

No-one can prove or disprove the existence or nature of God, but we can demonstrate and 'prove' the physical mechanism of species' evolution and we can trace the logical and undeniable path of much of this evolution from past to present species through investigation of millions of years of fossilized geological records.
Anyhow, why would anyone want to believe that God wouldn't have chosen natural 'evolution' as the logical and most effective means to populate and perpetuate His/Her 'garden'?

Ain't nature wonderful - thanks be to 'God'.

salty..<<..No-one can prove or disprove the existence>>

fair enough

BUT AS FAR AS PROVING..HIS MATURe<<..or nature of God, but we can demonstrate and 'prove' the physical mechanism of species' evolution>>

yes species evolve..within their genus boundRY
WITHIN EXTREEMS AS SAY WITNESSEd by a dog..as big as a rat..to as big as a deer/within that limit..within the genus cannis..sure

but never/not ever..has a dog brED A CAT
OR A RAT BREAD A LIZARD..NOR A LIZARD A RAT..[not ever has science reported this/NOT IN RECORD..NOR IN MYTH

..NEVER HAS A FRUITFLY BEGOTTEN A FLEA

FOR Good reason..lets saY..you really could..DO AS YOIU SAY<<..and we can trace the logical and undeniable path of much of this evolution from past to present species through investigation of millions of years of fossilized geological records.>>

you would know that fossils are assessed by taxonomy[and taxonomy]..has been refuted[it turns out dna is finding many ways..to to rome[meaning many 'mutations'..make a GIVEN FEATURE/..THUS THE LINKAGES Built oF phenotype rather than genes mutant/genotypes]..ITS Invalid scientific proof of linkage[tO/WIT..EVOLUTION]mate

just cause two horns look the same IN THEIR MINUTIA
dont mean one evolved the other/you say you goT PROOF?

PRESENT..JUST ONE CASE WHERE PURE BREEDING SPECIES/EVolved a\into a new genus..[not ever reported nor recorded=a huge fail/faith not fact

present fact
name the first living THING AT THE ROOT OF YA REFUTED TREE of life
that root must begin with the non LIFE..OR ITS FRAUD

WHAT NON LIFE..LIES At the root of thE TREe
THAT RECOMBINED BY WHAT MEANS INTO WHAT FIRST LIFE GENUS

PRESENT YA PROOF[SOMEONE SOLd ya on a lie mate
using pretty pictures that this looks like that/but it didnt work..like that
if yOU TRY TO EXPLAIN..I WILL EXPLAIN HOW IT REALLY HAPPENS..IS BY SPIRIT WILLING ITS BEING VIA THE BEST Logical path available to the energy otf the beings in heaven/hell[the deep]..BUT I KNOW YOU GOT NUTHin..like all the rest

you may be THE FIRST TO NOT RUN AWAY
but i doudt it.

2B/CTD..ASP

<<..Anyhow,..to populate.and perpetuate.His/Her'..garden'?>>

so far..you got..a gOOD BEGINNING..GOD=LIFE/FROM\LIFE
god only wants..what we..his kids want..and once...we can agree..on what we really want..HE MUST GIVE IT TO US LOGICALLY..[so the story makes..'sense'

<<Ain't..nature wonderful-thanks be.to..'God'.>>

SO TRUE..SO
IN THE BEGINNING..WAS GOD..LOGIC..SELF-aware logic
who thought..[sought/simply]]..to know/thyself..like we all dO..

SO..WHAT DID GOD..CAUSE TO OCCUR

SCIENCE..SAYS A MUD BUBBLE..BUT THE MEMBRANE
..FULLY IS A MEM-BRAIN..it has two inwards..facing cells within cells hells bells..here i am explaining your story/for you

try explaining mine..[how 12 spirits]..FROM HEAVEN/HELL NEED GET of one mind..to input change via logic[ie get a ape frustrated..with a deformed penus.,..

that..first/visualized/realized..step-only..[that alone]..took 12 ANGELS AND DEMONS..TO ACHIEVE..[pre/the fall]..THEN THE DEMON/RAPED THE PIG/HERSELF PREPARED BY MICRO EVOLUTION/LUST DEMONS..THAT ADAM AND EVE create the..adam/of science..that spirit..yet again create the eve

i should stick/with..the known known..wrote in stone/fossils
please reveal..in the life made stone..WHERE THE FIRST LIVING CEL IS MADE..INTO STONE

science..so far says a mud bubble..full OF DNA..OK NOW YOU
HOW Did..that first mud cell..divide..[what was its name..what was its firsT LIVING..CELL FORMS NAME.[genus species.whatever ya got salty]

WHATEVER YA GOT..IF NOT..PRESENTED..IS FAITH
faith in a lie..

if you..cant REPEAT IT..ITS A THEORY
[THATS SNAK-Oil/a lie

first name names..THEN GIVE UP
WORD THAT EXPLAINS What remains

god put life .into a mud bubble
[gee what primitive/TRIBE..hasnt said tHAT..

you claim..proof/present it/..NAME/PROCESS SPECIFIC-nameS
ALTY..PLEASE..TOGETHER WE CAN FIGURE THINGS OUT..name names..[search terms..we can figure it out/..you refute mine..i refute yours/

this cant be done..by only one
willing soul..normally..even in heaven/helL IT WOULD TAKE 12 [PLuS]..[1]=13...

but here..we can do it..with just two..
CAUSE/CLEARLY/BETWEEN US..WE GOT MORE HERE..THAN TWO.

[SO WHAT DOES..this EVOLVING/SCIENCE SAY?]

MUDDBUBBLE..minerals...now the,,FIRST/EVER/LIVING-Cell/cell divides..name the beginning/NON GENUS]....and..its kid....I GIVE THAT that will validate the first change OF GENUS STATE[from inanimate..into lifE

NAME NAMES/WHICH..20 Essentials..to life
INANIMATE..gave the first life..

[aside]/joke..by the 13..[funny enough..only/the 13 th sperm gets in oNLY..CAUSE THE 12 STRETCH..THE TAughtness..of the egg mem-brain..[sadly even fertilization..of the egg/loOKS..LIKE MASS RAPE/BY 12 SPERM/

YET..ONLY..THE 13 SPERM..MAKES THE LIFE.
FROM/DUST THOU ART/unto dust..thee SHALT RETURN.
BUT ADD/BUT..ONE REPENTANT-tear..SEE/NOW..god draws near

THE Basis of pig chimp thesis
INTRODUCTION: A NEW THEORY
http://www.macroevolution.net/stabilization-theory.html

http://www.macroevolution.net/table-of-contents.html
http://www.macroevolution.net/stabilization-processes.html

Why the author chose to create an alternative theory of evolution and his approach to doing so. Read on >>
http://www.macroevolution.net/introduction.html
1: ON SPECIES
http://www.macroevolution.net/Definition-of-Species.html
This section discusses some of the serious problems biologists have had with defining species, a word at the heart of modern evolutionary thought.

* 1.0 Introduction. A brief explanation of why the word species needs to be dealt with before any real progress can be made in evolutionary thought. http://www.macroevolution.net/Definition-of-Species.html

*
thomas aquinas
1.1 On the origin of the word species. Species was originally a word used by philosophers, for whom it had a much clearer meaning than it has for scientists today. http://www.macroevolution.net/species.html

* 1.2 The natural order. An account of how scientists inherited the term species from the schoolmen of the medieval era. http://www.macroevolution.net/natural-order.html

* 1.3 Hybrids and immutability. Read how early naturalists thought of hybrid sterility as the essential factor maintaining the natural order. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-animals.html

* 1.4 Carolus Linnaeus rejects creationism. Read how Linnaeus was the first major naturalist to break with the idea of immutability and how he proposed one of the first evolutionary theories.
Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/carolus-linnaeus.html

* 1.5 Creationism versus hybridization. How creationists responded to Linnaeus' theory Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/creationism.html

* 1.6 Binomial nomenclature. An explanation of what it means to be "treated as a species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/binomial-nomenclature-theory.html

* 1.7. The "essence" criterion. John Locke's cogent critique of "species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/essentialism.html

* 1.8 Definitions of species. A discussion of the various concepts of "species." Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/definitions-of-species.html

* 1.9 Reproductive isolation: A vague criterion. Why reproductive isolation can never serve as a satisfactory basis for defining species. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html

* 1.10 Species: Resolving the problem. A simple way to resolve the species question. Read on http://www.macroevolution.net/species-classification.html

2: ON HYBRIDIZATION
http://www.macroevolution.net/definition-of-hybrid.html

Dear OUG, (Johan),

Sorry ol' son, you just have to get over it. God's plan has obviously been to use 'natural' species-evolution to clothe and populate this marvellous construction we call 'Earth' - to make His envisioned 'Garden of Eden' a glowing reality.
Microbes, plants, animals, near-animals, near-plants, all in glorious array for 'us', the current height of evolutionary development, to explore, to enjoy, to marvel at, and to try to explain.
And, what a magical scheme, to add just a tiny touch of 'life' into the primordial 'soup' of methane atmosphere over dark and lifeless oceans splashing on shores of iron and crusted minerals, and then to sit back and watch the greatest inexplicable 'miracle' blossom and grow into an abundance so numerous and so diverse as to stagger the senses.
Ah, what splendor, what a 'miracle'! C'est 'La Vie'; This is Life!

Tall men, short men, dark, fair, round-eyed, oval-eyed, curly and straight haired, migrating, adapting, exploring and savoring the myriad ecosystems and startling bio-diversity of this tiny speck in the infinite cosmos.

Lucky-dip Lottery; we have a winner!
Enjoy, appreciate, preserve! (For 'God's' sake.)
(And, for heaven's sake, take time to stop and smell the roses.)
Future-Eaters beware; we have just one shot, and we had better get it right. Or else?

dEAR SALTY/its a game/loaded with spin/and deliberated dumbing down
[a godless agenda]

<<..So when we see Evolutionists playing fast and loose with words,
confusing "similar" and "identical",..THUS..we see he is only copying what..other propagandists do,..in obscuring the two completely different meanings.

Human and Chimp DNA is NOT 96% IDENTICAL,
and the percentage is NOT based on checking the entire Humane Genome.

Human and Chimp DNA is an estimated 96% SIMILAR,
and the percentage is based on checking ABOUT 1% of the Human Genome.

YOU BOUGHT INTO THE SPIN
thus miss the real means of how god done it.

These various types of stabilization processes are all well-known, well-understood ways of producing new types of organisms.
http://www.macroevolution.net/chapter-4-conclusion.html

This section also pointed out that many such forms have been, or are currently being, treated as species. Most, but not all, of these processes depend upon hybridization.

It was also explained how such processes, through their repeated occurrence can generate entire complexes of related forms (e.g., agamic complexes, polyploid complexes). Concrete examples were given of each of these various types of stabilization processes. So stabilization processes are observed facts, not theoretical mechanisms. They provide proof of evolutionary change..by outcross/hybreds..rather than wITH-in species..MICRO-'evolution'

http://www.macroevolution.net/chapter-5-int.html
The previous section explained how saltation can occur via various well-known genetic processes. This section (i.e., Section 5), and the two that follow (Section 6 and Section 7) attempt to assess the evolutionary significance of saltation and explain why it is reasonable to suppose that the evolutionary production of new forms of life is typically saltatory, not gradual, as traditional evolutionary theory suggests.

http://www.macroevolution.net/recombinational-stabilization.html
Recombinant derivatives produced from interchromoset hybridization have all the qualities usually expected of "species" because they represent chromotypes that are distinct from *either of the parental chromotypes.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-infertility.html

we musT NOT FORGET..MANY CLAIMING..'SCIENCE'..
REALLY DONT 'GET' THE SCIENCE..but they got faith..others do..[wrongly]..it seem its all on faith..in god or a science 'man'[doing his job..tricking people away from THE LIVING LOVING GOOD/GOD..CREATING/SUSTAINING THE LIVING..OUR VERY BEING.