And yet you could not quote anything from your own article that supports this belief of yours. Remember, that was the challenge to you. You failed. All you did was to repost your unsupported claim.<quoted text>
You can't read. Even researchers admit lab experiments and nature are not evidence of an organisms ability to endlessly adapt per se ie macroevolution. Will you please start being sensible at least?
An organisms ability to interact with the environment, like immunity, is a created system now only being seen in epigentics that has now been found to inheritable. God gets it right every time.
Actually we do. We have the fossil record. It supports only evolution. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of scientific evidence. I would be happy to go over that concept with you. Did you know that idiots like you is the reason that scientific evidence has the definition that it has?You don't have any evidence of an organisms ability to adapt endlessly. Researchers can only come up with assumptions as to why all that they find hasn't sent all life into extinction. LOL!
I have already taken to point as made. Suck it up Subby.
I have a testable hyopthesis that being the genome is limited in its ability to adapt and that hypothesis is supported even with your crappy flawed research. That hypothesis not only supports a creationist paradigm it also coincidently falsifes TOE. Isn't that just wonderful, Subby?
DOH, what a fool. Yes, it just happened to get sea life right. So what? It was not spoken into existence, it evolved. The rest is of course messed up.What are you talking about moving goal posts? Listen Subby, an old scroll didn't have to bluster on about organic soup and clearly stated life began in the sea.
ROFLMAO!!Those silly scientists should listed to the bible now and again. It would save them heaps of blustering about and wasting grant money.
Here is a lesson for today that I have posted before that obviously you have forgotten...
And again, ROFLMAO!!Man and ape have different molecular machinery. All your comparative genomics is a hammered sham.
"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."
Different machinery pal. No ancestral connection unless one assumes "once upon a time", somewhere, somehow, humans 'evolved' new genomic machinery. LOL!
Sorry, you quoting articles that you do not understand and trying to claim that it supports your claims is hilarious.