Proof

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Look at every mammal on the planet. We all have the same skeleton. ie. skull, spine, rib cage, arms, legs, pelvis, appendages. We all have eyes, mouth, ears, a brain, our cardiovascular system is the same. We give birth to live young and suckle them. All mammals are adaptions of the same structure. But you wouldn't say all mammals have a common ancestor would you? Why not?

yes but we dont all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we dont all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. Everything created according to their kinds. I just read your statement on the E Coli experiments, which i thought you were using to demonstrate transmutation, i see that you were not, i apologise for the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but we dont all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we dont all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. Everything created according to their kinds. I just read your statement on the E Coli experiments, which i thought you were using to demonstrate transmutation, i see that you were not, i apologise for the misunderstanding.

“...yes but we don't all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we don't all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. ...”

….and we still have vestige gills at the embryo stage and we still share many anatomy features and genetic characteristics etc with whales etc all of which CLEARLY point to we and other mammals sharing a common ancestor.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...yes but we don't all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we don't all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. ...”

….and we still have vestige gills at the embryo stage and we still share many anatomy features and genetic characteristics etc with whales etc all of which CLEARLY point to we and other mammals sharing a common ancestor.

did i say we all dont have blow holes on the top of our heads, let me retract that in the case of Mr Hamilton.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I didn't provide the link to the Lenski experiment to demonstrate transmutation. I linked that to show you beneficial mutations do happen.

What about my mammal question. Mammals have the same framework, why can't they all have a common ancestor? What is biologically stopping them from having one?

As for achieving what you wanted, this is what you a ...[text shortened]... isappear. Only to enter another debate in the not too distant future repeating the same views.

They all have a common designer and maker, God. He
has made the restrictions that they will reproduce in the
kind he created them. It is that simple.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Do you have a better example of the evolutionist? ...”

the link doesn't particularly give nor explicitly give an example of an evolutionist.
What does the content of the link got to do with “evolutionist” (or, indeed, evolution) ?
It gives some talk about the Big Bang which is relevant to evolution because evolution is NOT a theory on the or ...[text shortened]... 't (a common misconception) . The whole conversation is silly and flawed right from the start)

What do you think the "Big Bang" is and what reference have you?
Why is it called "The Big Bang Theory" if it is not some type of loud
explosion? Is someone trying to mislead? The person being asked
the question is an evolutionist.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...yes but we don't all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we don't all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. ...”

….and we still have vestige gills at the embryo stage and we still share many anatomy features and genetic characteristics etc with whales etc all of which CLEARLY point to we and other mammals sharing a common ancestor.

Why can't it CLEARLY point to a common designer, GOD?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but we dont all have a blow holes on top of our heads and we dont all swim in the sea and eat plankton either. Everything created according to their kinds. I just read your statement on the E Coli experiments, which i thought you were using to demonstrate transmutation, i see that you were not, i apologise for the misunderstanding.

Now explain to me why, biologically speaking, all mammals can't have a common ancestor. What is stopping the process happening?

Secondly, do you accept penguins evolved from a bird that could fly?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sowwy dear Noobster, i have achieved what I wanted to do, avalanche the putty cat has very honestly commented that adaptation is not the same as transmutation. You yourself when asked about it, provided as evidence, the Lenski experiments, yet you have not stated how these are supposed to support the premise other than to postulate that aberrat ...[text shortened]... o something else, for that is, when you get down to the fundamentals of it, what you are saying.

Actually I didn't say that adaptation is not the same as transmutation, I said that evolution was not the same as speciation consequent to evolution.

You have still not addressed my main point. You accept that Darwin's finches speciated by evolution (which you call 'adaptation'😉, yet you decline to tell us whether you accept the same among felines. If you don't accept that lions and tigers evolved ('adapted'😉 from a common ancestor, why not? And if you do... well, let's have an answer from you first eh?

Originally posted by RJHinds
They all have a common designer and maker, God. He
has made the restrictions that they will reproduce in the
kind he created them. It is that simple.

Tell me more about these 'restrictions' if you will.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Tell me more about these 'restrictions' if you will.

Read the first chapter of Genesis in the Holy Bible.
God made the differnt Kinds of animals and plants
and made sure the seeds coming from a kind would
be restricted to produce the same kind that they came
from. Exactly how God created the different kinds of
animals and plants, we don't know. But we do know
the seeds of reproduction do exactly as stated. We
have proof of that. It is right there in any biology text
book.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Read the first chapter of Genesis in the Holy Bible.
God made the differnt Kinds of animals and plants
and made sure the seeds coming from a kind would
be restricted to produce the same kind that they came
from. Exactly how God created the different kinds of
animals and plants, we don't know. But we do know
the seeds of reproduction do exactly as stated. We
have proof of that. It is right there in any biology text
book.

God had nothing to do with it (because there is no god). But if there were a god who designed all the plants and animal, he made lots of mistakes. The prostate gland, wisdom teeth, the human eyeball, the vas deferens, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve are five well documented anatomical features that are explained perfectly by Darwin but are very poor planning if made by an (un)intelligent designer.

Originally posted by 667joe
God had nothing to do with it (because there is no god). But if there were a god who designed all the plants and animal, he made lots of mistakes. The prostate gland, wisdom teeth, the human eyeball, the vas deferens, and the recurrent laryngeal nerve are five well documented anatomical features that are explained perfectly by Darwin but are very poor planning if made by an (un)intelligent designer.

Arrogant aren't you. I suppose you think you could have done a
better job in creating the universe.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Arrogant aren't you. I suppose you think you could have done a
better job in creating the universe.

If he was omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and whatever other childish attributes you pin to this unknowable god of yours then yeah, 667joe (or anyone else having such properties) probably would do a better job.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Arrogant aren't you. I suppose you think you could have done a
better job in creating the universe.

No, I could not create the universe. Why do you think I am arrogant. I am merely citing evidence that supports Darwin. You have faith in intelligent design but no proof. You, sir, are closed minded and arrogant to think you are correct when you have absolutely no proof. How old do you think the earth is?

Originally posted by 667joe
No, I could not create the universe. Why do you think I am arrogant. I am merely citing evidence that supports Darwin. You have faith in intelligent design but no proof. You, sir, are closed minded and arrogant to think you are correct when you have absolutely no proof. How old do you think the earth is?

I have the word of God as proof. And I am not arrogant enough
to think I or anyone else knows more than God.