Skip to content
There, you've done it again. You haven't even looked up the examples I gave and there you've put your foot in your mouth. As it turns out we have found many species of Dinosaurs with feathers. You would do well to do the research next time ;) .
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur</a>
And you're right, absolutely about arranging bones and interpreting what ever you want. I agree that's how things were done 80-100 years ago... some were even broken to fit. But that's not acceptable anymore. Every bit of paleontology is peer reviewed now and scrutinized. Fakers are outed and made example of by their own colleagues. It's rare to simply interpret what you want to see anymore... you have to prove why you believe it to be so... or you'll lose credibility! And credibility is everything when you're a scientist. That's why we have what's called "Disclosure". It's so that other Scientists can repeat your experiments. That way if there are errors, they'll be found by someone else and again, you'll be outed and lose credibility! I wish it was as easy as just being able to say what ever you want, but it's not... see in real science there's always someone out there trying to prove you wrong.
DNA is actually our best friend by the way... see you forget things like Endogenous retroviruses and Pseudogenes, just two more examples of how we use DNA testing aside from the four I already provided. A quick read would do you well. See, since DNA testing so often meets with so much skepticism we've developed half a dozen different tests to confirm what one or more might not be covering. See, we have every door covered because when someone goes and says "Yeah, but the proteins prove nothing..." then we can still say "but yeah, we tested the ribosomal RNA too and guess what?!". See, you assume we only do one test per sample... but we don't! Each sample is subjected to a battery of tests.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent</a>
And you can't have Evolution between kinds! You just proved you don't know anything about how evolution works. Again, research is key.
Evolution is modification via common decent.
A slightly longer version is that in order for an animal to have a significant influence over evolution it must produce at least two or more offspring who each must produce at least two or more offspring and so on. If the specific mutations of an animal are passed on with enough succession to distinctly differentiate the new emerging population bearing that trait unique to it's own also distinct geographical habitat or breading habits then it can be defined as a subspecies. If that population continues to diverge such that it is chemically infertile with the population with which it diverged and to any sister population then it will be categorized as it's own species. Over time these species might also become physically unique such that they are physically and therefore noticeably different from other related species.
See, a mammal will never have Feathered Wings because evolution doesn't allow that. A population can only build on the traits of it ancestors. See, another good way to explain it is "Variable proportion and modification compiled upon successive tiers of common decent". Which is why Birds are still Tetrapods!
And you still haven't told me what a "Kind" is or why the fossil record doesn't reflect any of you "Kinds". If it were open to interpretation your "Kinds" should be obvious in the fossil record, so where are they?
One last thing on DNA... you mentioned a gain of genetic information... 99% of the human genome is waste and does nothing accounting for only 1% that actually does anything. A puffer fish has no junk DNA at all... every bit is useful... and a grain of rice, just one grain, actually has more "Genetic Information" than the whole of your entire human body. So where is it written that genetic information had to be added to evolve new species? Again, Modification via Common Decent!
You can't get something new in evolution with out first modifying what you already have.
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design