Ran, an argument like that won't do any good in a discussion like this. I don't want to rain on your parade, but you're wasting your breath if you're trying to change anyone's mind with this evidence.

Quote:

I think you may have overlooked cross breeding between species as a way of gaining new traits in genetics or blending genetics to arrive at a new species as a possibility. It is my belief this happened often with the dinosaurs and their predecessors.



That's still begging the question. If we started out at the most basic of genetics (a single cell), and cross breeding is the only option left for positive mutations, then what does the most basic of DNA cross breed with? Materialist evolution still has no starting point.

First off, if animals are too genetically dissimilar, they either won't be able to breed for physical reasons, or they won't be able to breed for genetic reasons. So we're still dealing with pretty limited occurances here. However, we have witnessed many of these cross-breeds in real life that lead to interesting results. Typically however, cross breeding is associated with organisms of a species spreading traits around to a different species.

Of course, the idea of a species is kind of awkward when it comes to science. Because, if these different species can produce fertile hybrids, are they really different species? Actually it just goes a long way in showing that both of these species are just a branch from the same Kind of animal.

There are some more interesting examples, like I've said. For instance, the zeedonk. A zebra/donkey as the name implies.

This is actually further evidence of a 'master species' that I referenced in my long post. Or the idea that these animals are genetically similar enough because they descended from a greater kind of horse that had more inherit genetic variance than these animals now have (the variance in genetics was reduced due to natural selection, and specialization and led to distinct species of animals).

By the way, if you're a fan of Napoleon Dynamite, you'll be interested to know they've actually produced real-life ligers. Which are pretty much his favorite animal (I dislike that movie greatly).

This link is from a creationist website, but if you are interested in learning about these cross-breeds then I recommend you give it a click. Its the best (and most interesting) compilation of information on cross breeds I could find on short notice.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp

Cross breeding doesn't really lead to any new genetic data, however, which is required for the type of evolution talked about constantly by scientists (materialist evolution). For instance, if you mix purple orchids with white orchids, you get mixed color orchids (in other words the data for white and purple both show through, not some new data). You definately don't get orchids with feathers, however. I see what you mean, that these white orchids wouldn't have had the purple data to begin with, but if they're genetically similar enough to naturally produce hybrids then it only proves that they've come from a species that did have this variance, and that each color was specialized into a seperate species by natural selection, or some other natural device. The white and purple don't combine to create something truly, genetically new.

Cross breeding is limited by genetics, however, and so you can't say a bird mated with a lizard to give it wings (besides that you then have to wonder why lizards need to transition into a bird if the bird is already there).

I hope that explains it well enough, since I've managed to draw this post out into a novel by this point, too. Heh.

Quote:

Don't you think it is far reaching to think that since scientists failed to produce life in a lab it is not a possibility?



I think its a good thing that scientists are trying to create life in labs. For many people this will mean that God did not create life, but not for me. For me its simply a chance to gain a better understanding of life. Even if spontaneous creation of life is possible, it does not mean God did not create us, because then scientists still have to tackle the problem of materialist evolution. There will always be evidence of God, and I'm not going to be afraid of science since its a great tool for understanding the world around us.

But a lab is not the beginning of the world. Life in a test tube does not prove that it happened in a natural setting. The fact is, unless we revert the earth to its true origins (according to evolutionists) and sit around until life is spontaneously created and then evolves, we haven't disproved God. So I say, "Go ahead and create life in a lab." It will open new gateways to our understanding of life.

Quote:

However you cannot deny that over millions of years whole ages of creatures have come and gone, leaving only remnants of their existence in the creatures of today, such as the shark and the alligators.



I don't believe the earth is millions of years old, but I do believe that animals have come and gone (from the same starting point to varying other extinction points). However, it sounds like you're saying since sharks and alligators are 'primitive' they might show us evidence that we may have come from more basic life forms. That's only true if you believe we came from more primitive life forms to begin with. Since I can otherwise say, "These animals (or perhaps more generalized 'master specie') were created to be well adapted to the earth to survive." This isn't really relevant. For instance, there's so much proof against materialist evolution at this point, that sharks can fit into the creationist model of life without any problem. They were simply created (or a more generalized shark from the past was created) to be well suited to its environment. Not every animal needs to be as genetically advanced as humans. The shark is simply well created for the environment in which it lives.

Quote:

here were creatures that existed that were covered in feathers but did not have wings nor did they fly.



Fair enough, but I'd like to see these animals. Fossils, once again are tricky territory. We once thought the archaeopteryx wasn't a bird, but we know that more than likely it was simply a perching bird. Of course, we can never really say even that much for sure because these animals don't exist. Forensics are great, but they're no match for the observable. And as Darwin himself said,

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Of course, today we now know that any evolution that animals undergo is limited by their original genetics so this answer is simple. He didn't know that, because the theory of evolution was still in its infancy.

I believe that in his heart of hearts, Darwin was afraid that his observations were making the idea of God seem implausible. So he asked the right questions, even questioning his own ideas. Why can't scientists continue doing this nowadays, when we still lack the evidence?

Anyway, when we discover these 'missing links', we spend years and years revising our ideas about them. Usually it turns out their morphology is essential to their survival somehow, which simply shows that they are well developed, well adapted standalone species.

However, once again if all the evidence points towards materialist evolution being impossible, then can we really rely on supposedly million or billion or trillion year old relics to argue to the contrary? We can learn more by the observable world as it is today than by trying to make assumptions (unprovable) from relics of the past. The fact is, scientists make mistakes all the time. They may be the ones who fix them, but we can't count on fossils to prove something that can never be observed in nature. We need real proof.

In other words, if true transitional forms do not exist to this day, what makes us think these are transitional forms when we can't even observe the animal in its natural environment? Assumptions aren't proof.

Quote:

Bats as well are an example of a creature that flys and yet has no feathers.



I know, but in the context of the dinos-to-bird assumption scientists make, bats are irrelevant. I was focusing specifically on the birth of flight from the bird perspective. Bats are a whole other story.

Its getting late, so I hope I'm not rambling or that I'm at least making sense. I'm gonna go play some games before I head off to bed.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/04/06 06:15.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."