Hey RAZD,



Evolution, (the word) can be used easily to describe an observable fact - variation, which we all acknowledge. Or "micro evolution" as is sometimes used. It's observable and always has been observable. But to use this term, and then extend it out of the realms of what has been observed now or anytime in history is, once again, to my mind very deceptive and that is the key here. As though time itself, environmental conditions, mixing of genetics, has the magic to allow small changes to become significant, over time, so much so, that one animal could in fact, become something else. According to evolution.

Yet, all we have ever observed, is variation and certain traits becoming emphasized under certain conditions, but no animal has been observed to become anything it's not. To imagine it's possible isn't enough to preach it as a fact. All we get is a mixing of the existing gene pool. Even scientists mucking around in a lab have only the existing genetics to toy with. Neither they, nor the environment or time have the magic to add new information.

There seems to be a barrier, no matter how much variety you get within a kind, no matter how much interventive breeding, we do not seem to be able to break that barrier. You cannot breed an animal out of its own kind. Nobody disputes the incredible potential for such variety contained within all creatures genetics, but when it gets out of the realm of observation and into the realm of imaginationary scenarios is where I find it becomes deceptive.



Evolution, if it really started with today, would observe that all things reproduce after their own kind and always have (as far as anybody is able to prove). Instead it makes predictions of the unseen past based on their assumptions of our evolutionary beginnings and then preaches it as though it were a fact. So you actually have this back to front. They haven't just left things "unanswered" they have filled in the "gaps" with assumptions and anything they do find is slotted into the evolution theory. I guess you can keep telling yourself there are no cases contradicting the evolution theory because you and those like you have accepted it as truth irrespective of anything. Nothing anybody presents will be a problem for you because the idea of evolution is to keep the theory in motion. You heard the saying "a rolling stone gathers no moss"? I could apply it here. Keep it moving and move it in different directions if necessary. This theory is simply moved around to keep people from catching it standing too long in one place and finding out the drawbacks/deceptions/lies that are being told to promote evolution and keep it alive. Thankfully there are those who are drawing people's attention to it, the ones who don't get swept up in the ongoing movement/tide of it, but keep pinning it down and cornering it.



See, here we have an example of indoctrination once again. Assuming evolution took place is what you are doing. Then asking whether the changes were dramatic, as though it took place and it's a fact. Not allowing for anybody to consider anything else. You would need to prove this took place. Then provide pictures to the contrary showing it has. Proof of the fossils and fossil record? Start producing it on here. I've already been through the dinosaur to bird theory and you guys still cannot get past the fact you haven't been able to prove skin/scales turn into feathers, let alone a dinosaur itself could become a bird. Wow, it seems that one can repeat themselves and given pictures on here incessantly and then they bring it up again as though it never happened.

Please RAZD, produce proof that this process took place. Show me where in the fossils and the fossil record it shows dinosaurs becoming birds. Scaled skin turning into feathers. Front legs becoming wings. Imagining that this is a missing link in the first place without having ANY proof whatsoever that it's a missing link at all. Considering how many varieties of birds there are now and how many may have become extinct.



You compare a mature oak tree with it's beginning as an acorn, to a dinosaur becoming a bird......do you know RAZD that the only changes to an acorn is growth? Are you aware of the differences between a dinosaur and a bird? We're not talking about an egg becoming a bird (growing) we are talking here about another animal becoming a totally different kind of animal. Please, please stop insulting our intelligence. It's as ridiculous as comparing grass seed becoming grass and thinking <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" /> gosh this proves evolution. See what I mean by the evolutionist trying to match growth from its early stages and then claiming that as proof that one kind of animal can become another?

Think about the genetic impossibility of dinosaur to bird, as though this can be compared with "growth". Wow, I'd imagine that the oak tree, given enough time, could probably become an arm chair too, given no outside creative intelligence. That's actually more feasible than dinosaur to bird! At least it's made of the same stuff! If you want a more accurate comparison, try something more outrageous. Though given enough time and the right environment, throw in some imagination and you could come up with anything. Oh and an oak tree and acorn don't require a missing link <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Just plant the acorn and water the soil and wait for it to grow. There's plenty of existing examples too and hey you can re-produce this experiment yourself! No real mystery RAZD. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/byebye.gif" alt="" />