Replies

gore3000 wrote "The importance of reproductive viability is so obvious that it is ridiculous for you to deny it. How can someone descend from someone else if there is no reproductive viability?"

It is important that is why new line most often descend through siblings with the same genetic information and mutations which you conveniently ignore each time I tell you.

gore3000 wrote "that is why evolutionists try to make a mess of it."

if you mean saying that siblings reproducing with each other is a mess than yes we make a mess of it because we disprove your point.

gore3000 wrote "As we see in nature, the reproductive viability of species is very narrow and for evolution to be true the whole group has to remain viable through all the changes needed for these supposed evolutionary transformations"

This is a ludicrus assumption. All members do not have to remain viable for evolution to occur in fact all differences in viability account for differences in species. Human ancestory can be genetically traced to small numbers of individuals this is because those nomasdic individuals interbred with their own relatives increasing their small groups genetic homogenity (this means those interbreeding couples became closer genetically) and with time increasing changes (from the overall group of early hominids) in their genetic makeup accumulated by viral vectors create a change that excludes them from genetic viabilty with the parent group.

As we can simiply see the entire group does not and for the sake of evolution must not remain viable sexually.

gore3000 wrote "Different mutations in different individuals do not mix. So in order to have a transformation (which due to the complexity of organisms would require many different mutations) you would have to have those mutations merge into a single line of individuals - again maintaining reproductive viability throughout. Quite a problem for evolution"

As I will continue to state the mutations occur in large part in the sperm or egg cells that are past to siblings. Also mutations don't have immediately cause a loss of sexually viability you yourself state that some tigers and lions retain viabilty that seems to help my side much more than yours as a Liger which can breed with another Liger would create a unique species after a period of time with only two individuals as the progenitors of tsuch a species.

You seem to think that certain mutations must occur all at once to account for differces in say mammilian reproduction. This is blatantly not true. Live birth obviously came long before the ability to nurse. Certain reptiles exhibit the ability to give birth to live young. Early mammals could also however a mutation that allows nursing is separte from that mutation that allows live birth neither nessescitates the other.

gore3000 stated for the millionth time after I have proved him wrong over and over " But more important, the principle that definitions in science have to be exact and objective should be pretty obvious. Else all science would be impossible since one cannot discuss things unless all understand what is being spoken about."

First you dont even seem to believe in Science so telling me about the rigors of scientific definitions is laughable. Definitions in science have to be changable science is worthless if it cannot change to meet the future discoveries of scientists. You continued mantra that they can't change shows the depth of your ignorance on the subject.

Gore3000 wrote "Yup and your sources, a personal blog which has no credibility and an article speaking of retroviruses which does not address the question do not refute the bacterial flagellum nor the problem I mentioned which all the evolutionists try to ignore about how a species can change its mode of reproduction while continuing to reproduce."

Hmm my credibility is far and above yours as I am quite willing to share my credentials which is something you continue to ignore along with all the other evidence I have given you against your arguments. Since no evidence will convince you and you will continue to Lie and say no one ever gives you evidence I will no longer debate someone who can debate with no more alacrity than to say "NO IT ISN'T" or "NO YOU DIDN'T" each time he is challenged and refuses to ansewr the simplest questions or give even basic evidence for his belief beyond shouting a word that has no meaning when spoken from his lips.

Does it make you proud that you have to LIE to protect the LIE taught to you by the Mythology you cling to so fervently.

gore3000 wrote "As we see in nature, the reproductive viability of species is very narrow and for evolution to be true the whole group has to remain viable through all the changes needed for these supposed evolutionary transformations" -me-

This is a ludicrus assumption. All members do not have to remain viable for evolution to occur in fact all differences in viability account for differences in species.

It is ludicrous however it is the assumption made by punk-eek that a whole isolated group transforms itself into a new more complex species. Indeed for a new transformed individual to be able to reproduce there must be others with the same transformation to enable it to reproduce. So you have a problem here that you need the transformation to arise in more than one individual. Due to genetics and the fact that mutations are not additive among groups but must occur in the same line of individuals carrying the particular mutation (you cannot have a single base mutation in one gene added to by another single base mutation in the same gene from another individual because they will be in two different alleles) such trasformations are well nigh impossible. Since specific mutations occur in individuals, not in entire species, it is ludicrous to say that even a small group in a species will transform itself together into a new more complex species. To say that such transformations occur all the time as evolution proposes is total nonsense.

You seem to think that certain mutations must occur all at once to account for differces in say mammilian reproduction. This is blatantly not true. Live birth obviously came long before the ability to nurse. Certain reptiles exhibit the ability to give birth to live young. Early mammals could also however a mutation that allows nursing is separte from that mutation that allows live birth neither nessescitates the other.

That some reptiles seemingly give birth to live young is a half-truth that does not solve the problem of how mammalian reproduction arose, those reptiles reproduce by eggs also, only the eggs 'hatch' insided the mother:

Babies and Birth – Eggs or Live?

One of the most interesting things about reptiles is their reproduction. Not only the genetics and gender determination, but also whether or not they lay eggs or give what most call “live birth.” This one factor alone is a major determining factor in where they fall in scientific nomenclature.

Egg laying reptiles are what most people are familiar with since they seem to make up the largest groups of reptiles. These animals are referred to as oviparous. Ovoviviparous is the term used for reptiles that seem to give live birth. We will discuss the differences in these terms first.

Oviporous is the correct scientific term for animals that lay eggs with a shell from which offspring emerge. Not only do many reptiles fall into this category but also birds and even platypus are oviparous. The eggs of most reptiles have a leather-like shell that thins as the hatch date looms near. Some reptiles, such as turtles and tortoises produce eggs with hard shells. Eggs of reptiles come in all different sizes and shapes to best accommodate the size and shape of the offspring.

Ovoviviporous is the correct scientific term for animals that carry the eggs internally and upon delivery of the offspring the entire shell structure has thinned to the point that only the thin mucous membrane remains from which the offspring emerges. Because no whitish shell structure is seen and the membrane is sometimes broken through by the time the baby is fully delivered by the mother, people often assume that these babies are born live.

True live-bearing animals are called viviparous and the major difference is that no internal egg structure is present at anytime during the development of the offspring. Mammals are viviparous, as are some fish. From: Eggs v "Live" Birth .

Note the last line - this fantastically difficult change from eggs to live birth has taken place more than once - a clear disproof of evolution (homology and all that nonsense). You have also failed to explain how a species can continue to reproduce while developing a new mode of reproduction. In short, you are wrong, absolutely wrong.