Oh Rusty

I thought you would still be out in the field looking instead of making up silly little stories. Then again funding depends on them I suppose. Any more Chinese frauds been printed in National Geographic lately? Found some real evidence before preaching your crap.

All the adaptable genes that are turned on to produce a prehistoric man in a laboritory require intelligent design not natural selection. Mutations happen naturally and are retrograde in effect, it is a defect in a gene or mising genes. What we need is added intelligent design features to form a new human species. Hitler in his intelligence tried this experiment on his nation.

The current logic as demonstrated by actual natural genetic selection is; man could only be the first creature and all others are formed from defective genes or lack of genes in a retrograde form - devolution. The fact is we are able to take humans from remote forests who have never been educated and educate them to the highest university levels of any Western Standard. Such is the case of my friend Beatrix from West Irian whose' father was a primitive head hunter, she currently has three university degrees, fluently speaks and writes in nine languages and is a microbioligist by profession working in the field of medicine. Her race has ben isolated for thousands of years, yet is equal to any westerner if given the opportunity. Many of them have ape like features but this does not make them a missing link.

The ultimate genetic form includes human intelligence and emotion. From man we have design and intelligence unequalled by any other species. Let us celebrate it is a design feature of our genetics.

Hi Philo,

With dino-chicks, the scientists were able to (re-) turn-on existing genes that added vertebrae to chicken tails, added small dinosaur-shaped teeth and turned feathers into scales. The geneticists had the "intelligence" to "design" the quasi-dinosaurs from modern chickens. However, the DNA material and executive on/off switches used, were the leagacy of creatures dead for millions. The manipulation is made using the ingredients now available in which working the DNA, was like baking a cake. No is need for Divine intervention.

My point to runner remains that there are genetic histories visible in DNA and that the evidence is so strong that in a few generations we might even be able to create Human intemediaries. (hythothetically, ethics aside)

Two hundred thousand years ago, there may have been only a few thousand of our direct ancestors to us. On the other hand, there were millions of other primates. It is a needle in a hay stack situation for fossil hunters. Herein, I think sciencists have done well with the discoveries made.

runner,

Like it or not you have not only proto-primates (ek, ek) in your family, you have life-forms as simple as bacteria. Me too, cousin. :-)

What is it with you and the National Geographic Society? I think most people would see the Society as a respected organisation.

Besides, as noted, I reported, the dino-ck cae, was video taped, showing laboratory experiments and their outcomes. No fraud.

What evidence "would" convince you that you are a primate: A great ape; according to primatologiosts?

Oliver,

Don't tell me you are not aware of National Geographic deceitfully promoting its faith.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/archaeoraptor-fraud-piltdown-bird.htm

Also publishing stories on missing links that they know the Chinese engineers built out of plastics is quite deceitful in most peoples eyes. Not so those who are blinded and so desperate to prove what hasn't and can never be proved.

Like it or not Oliver your explanation of us coming from apes is laughable. If you are unable to see design in the human body you really are totally blinded by unproven dogma or simply don't want to face truth.

You ask me what evidence would convince me? A mute point as there is none. There are only stories built around man's denial of the obvious. It is really quite pathetic seeing desperate men and women trying to convince others of such tales.

To anyone who may have thought that I was being a bit too harsh in this thread, I hope some of the above contributions help you to understand what I meant.

Richie 10, Runner & Philo, thanks for your contributions. I rest my case.

Richie 10,

<<Evolutionist know that you plant a white feather and grow a chook.>>

Do they? Who said this?

<<...when you get the monkey to produce an evolutionist I will believe.>>

And what would that have to do with evolution?

Runner,

<<Any more Chinese frauds been printed in National Geographic lately?>>

Oh, are you talking about the “Archaeoraptor”?

Archaeoraptor was put together by a person who collected fossils - not a scientist - and was rejected by the scientific community. National Geographic is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and the article in it about the Archaeoraptor was not done by a scientist.

So your claim appears to be the only fraud in this case - a Creationist fraud at that.

Thanks for revealing it.

Philo,

<<Mutations happen naturally and are retrograde in effect, it is a defect in a gene or missing genes.>>

The bad ones are. Do you think the vast majority that are either neutral or good are “retrograde” too?

In regards to your “missing genes” I believe the link I provided you with earlier debunks that. Did you bother to read it?

Poor runner,

Nothing but some national geographic this time.

And the large volume of thoroughly reviewed material that supports evolution? hmmmm?

Oh, that's right, the truth takes more time than you could bother spending.

Cheaply derived and cheaply held "theology" is just as good for you, and easier, thank goodness pastor has some.

Rusty