Replies

--the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility?--

I have never seen that fact.

Then you aint looking very sincirely or haRD. I've stated several times now that in order for evolution to be viable, you need to have lateral gene transference in order for the new information necessary for one species to become another KIND. Kind is the key word here- mutations can never evolve positively enough to assemble themselves in order to create new information- all mutations do is skew information in the cells already present- and mutations are almost 100% negative with a a small percentage being nuetral-

Now- when you get looking into mutations objectively, it becomes quickly apparent that even a zillion years would not be enough time for millions of necessary mutations to happen in concert- with nothign going awry, in order for design to hapen- even then, if this impossibility were vaguely possible, you would still have the same KIND without the necessary lateraL GENE TRANSFERENCE..

lATERAL GENE TRANSFERENCE IS EVOLUTIONS BEST HOPE- INFACT ONLY HOPE REALLY srry cps. if you're serious about understanding the biological impossibilities of bothj mutations and gene transferences for evolution- the latter is the one you should delve into- because without it, it is impossible for kinds to become different kinds. Even then, the cellular protections prevent this from happening. It has never been witnessed in nature aside from certain bacteria between their own kind, and in other species always turns out to be a deficit and not an asset when done artificially under controlled manipulations. (beleive it or not- goats were given gene info from spiders and produced silk in their milk)

Upallnight [I first pointed out a 'fact' but you chose to (even after a second request) to ignore my post]

You're gonna have to repost your 'fact' again- I've lost track= so many insults hurled by everyone, so little time to waDE through it all and keep track