No I do not see the connections because they are not there. Both those Wikipedia posts on page 18 do not mention beneficial DNA lengthening processes. We are just repeating ourselves here. I have nothing against beneficial DNA lengthening, I would like evolution to be a competing theory. In the meantime it looks like DNA appeared in its current form, because mutation increases to the genome do not benefit organisms, and they would have to have a benefit for natural selection to work. The evidence favours creation.



I believe in creation as the reason behind the appearance of advanced life forms. I have made that clear in this thread. Evolution works mainly within the pre-existing gene pool.



I do understand how evolution works. All scientists have to show, is how an added gene or set of genes is starting to show signs of having a function, rather than being useless additions to the genome. The mice example was close, but not quite, the proof was lacking, it was just speculation. There are signs of genome increases in many species, mutations that have been passed down genetically through the generations. The proof required is that these genome increases have some benefit. Without that , creation beats evolution as a viable theory to explain the appearance of advanced life-forms.

Your delusional. You have been given everything you need to sort out the truth of evolution.

Lol if insults were scientific evidence you guys wouldve proved evolution a long time ago.

Its actually pretty amazing how little evidence has been put forward. Especially those videos, they concentrated on projecting natural selection and how it works. A process that I believe in wholeheartedly. Yet no evidence of increased beneficial complexity which the theory of cells to arthropods to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to apelike mammals to human relies on.

You mean in this particular thread? How much do you expect from three guys on a dating site? The important thing is that we keep investigating; not that we reach any particular plateau in any particular conversation.

Now you have hit on something! Yep you are correct. If enough generations of certain people kept inner breeding, they could mutate into humans with tails or other reptilian traits.

I had a best friend who had a tail at birth and so did her brother. The tails were removed. They belonged to a "secret society" (not so secret now) but it was the Masons. Her marriage was an arranged one, and she was told that her blood type was so rare that she had to marry this guy with the rare blood type in order to have any children.

Her children were also raised within a secret society. This is all true.

So are these tails reptilian or from the monkey or lemur gene pool?

our DNA is closer to apes/lemurs than anything else... our DNA is about 95-98% the same as chimps and orangutangs... Orangutangs being closer than chimps. Scientists say the lemur is a distant relative of our evolution..

When you say "our DNA" who do you mean? Do you believe that all human's genes and DNA are the same?

This is true. Yes we are all learning. I do not doubt you will have your evidence soon anyway. I'm sure some scientist will create a very beneficial organism through some sort of genome increase. And show how nature could do the same. I am looking forward to that.

our, as in humans...doesn't DNA make up our genes?

i think that creationist are not looking at the time frames as well as they should... it almost a billion years just for the single celled organisms to combine, and another billion years for "advanced" life forms to evolve...we have been here about 100,000 years or so...

Apparently they are just called reptilian because of the tail and the slightly lower body temperature of that particular blood group. Apparently there are problems breeding outside that blood group.
I have heard about this phenomenon, very fascinating.

Evolution is falsifiable, you have failed to falsify it. I have no desire to battle against straw man arguments anymore. We can know nothing of genetics, and evolution is still true, and falsifiable. Your argument is an argument from ignorance.

I keep saying its an interesting possibility and hypothesis. I have no evidence for it being falsifiable agreed, I believe its a possibility. Its just that organisms do exist with differing chromosomal patterns, and these patterns do not easily adjust in favourable ways, so the fact that organisms exist, yet do not change very easily, favors creation more than evolution from an empirical perspective. Its only the propensity to not believe in a creator that would fail to see that basic biological fact, that organisms do not easily get succesfully more complex, but remain at a certain level of complexity.

I am not a geneticist. Neither are you, that much is clear. But even if no such thing exists, ie we did not know about genes and could not pull apart the causal relationship between genes and heredity, we would still know evolution is correct if not how it occurs.

The evidence is overwhelming. Scientific criticism does not start at taking some highly resolved detail of a field such as genetics to refute evolution. No to refute evolution you need to find a bunny in the Cambrian layer. There are other ways, but my point is that your argument is an argument from ignorance, you do not understand how heredity works, and there for do not accept evolution as true despite no competing theories, and no falsification of evolution. That is irrational.

It illustrates a lack of understanding of how science works, and how the theory of evolution is supported.

Why should anyone be pressured to accept your view that evolution is "true" if there is no proof? Just "overwhelming evidence."

It is not the quantity of evidence that counts. It is the quality of it.

I think there is overwhelming evidence (from my view point) that the sun goes around the earth. Why don't you accept that as true?

I think there is overwhelming evidence that the Bush-Cheney administration is involved in a cover-up about the 9/11 attack.

I believe evolution is true, but not the way scientists think, and it certainly does not rule out intelligent design. Evolutionist attempt to rule out the influence of consciousness and intelligent design.

lol... there is way more evidence that neither is true, but your super-secret websites tell you differently... great investigation work!

That's just your opinion.

mine and the majority of people on the planet...

You wish.

What do you do Mightymoe, just make this stuff up?

GUESS AGAIN.

***************************************************************

A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.

Sorry for getting off the topic of evolution I was just giving an example of overwhelming evidence and how it does not actually "prove" anything.