Aineo wrote:slp, I am a bachelor. As to change in DNA are you telling me that the chemical makeup of DNA changes or that each individual has different DNA?
The DNA sequences. More specifically, everyone has minute changes, primarily in their noncoding DNA.
As to your children you have human children you don’t have reptilian children. What you cannot show is that changes in DNA produce another species or “kind” of animal.
I can easily show that there is a discreet and observable pattern in the subsitution of nucelotides that indicate common ancestry. Do I know which exact changes resulted in speciation and the like? No.
The nylon bacteria started as bacteria and ended as a bacteria. If evolution to another species is possible why can’t science reproduce upward mobility from one kind to another in a laboratory?
Evolution does not necessitate 'upward mobility.' Allow me to ask the obvious - if science DID create a new species in a lab, would that not be touted as evidence for Design?
Heidelberg man is nothing more than a jawbone that is considerably larger than a modern man’s jawbone. Have you ever heard of elephantitis or giantism? Both are pathologies that produce normal humans. Heidelberg man could easily be a normal man with genetic abnormalities.
Fossils are not my area of expertise, but I do know anatomy, and I do know that a gret deal can be told about an organsim by examining even tiny fragments of bone. I don't know the specifics on H-man.
Nebraska man was proposed from a single tooth; a tooth that turned out to be the tooth of a pig and not even an extinct pig but a species found in South America today.
Yes, and it has not been in textbooks or touted as an ancestral taxon for decades.
Talkorigins has a nice rebuttal of Piltdown man and shows it is a hoax.
Yes, it was. Many doubted its authenticity from the get-go.
Neanderthal man is considered a sub species of Homo sapiens, which can be explained by normal variation within any species; and the same can be said of Cro-magnum man.
I don't think so. I have never seen or read about anyone stating that Neanderthals were just subspecies. Documentation?
Of course, you are contradicting Jack Cazzo, who claims that Neanderthals were really the biblical patriarchs or jsut hundreds of years old people. I guess he's never been to a nursing home - peopel's bones to not become more robust with age.
Lucy is theorized to be transitional, however Lucy was not a complete skeleton she is missing her hands and feet.
So?
The bones of other Australopithecus have shown they had ape like hands and feet. The bottom line is other than assumptions made by “experts” Lucy can be shown to be a sub-species of chimps.
Not in the slightest. Chimpanzees are nothing like Lucy. I strongly question your sources on this. Do you have any?
Also as normal variation is found in modern apes and humans what evolution cannot show is that Lucy was not a normal chimp with genetic abnormalities.
Nonsense. Lucy's pelvis was quite different from modern chimps, as was her skull.
Now what is more detrimental to evolution in my opinion is another scientific discipline known as mathematics. Evolution has been demonstrated to be a statistical impossibility.
Really? Care to expand on that? You see, I've dabbled in these mathematical 'disproofs'. They are so out of touch with reality that I wonder why anyone still uses them.
When any science divorces itself from other scientific disciplines the result is usually error maintained through arrogance and pride.
So that explains why lawyers and mathematicians and engineers so frequently pontificate on evolutionary biology.