XPost: alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christian.religion   
   XPost: alt.christian, alt.religion.last-days   
   From: a202010@mail.com   
      
   On 5/13/19 10:05 PM, Ron Dean wrote:   
   > On 5/10/2019 9:41 AM, James wrote:   
      
   >> Yes, you have some good examples here, such as the horse. It was once   
   >> (maybe still is) considered a prime example of macroevolution. Notice:   
   >>   
   >> As The World Book Encyclopedia states: "Horses are among the   
   >> best-documented examples of evolutionary development." Illustrations   
   >> of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of   
   >> today. But does the fossil evidence really support this?   
   >>   
   >> But then The Encyclopaedia Britannica comments: "The evolution of the   
   >> horse was never in a straight line."  In other words, nowhere does the   
   >> fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to   
   >> the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost   
   >> evolutionary model: "Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so   
   >> complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a   
   >> matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the   
   >> earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us   
   >> only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at   
   >> all-a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the   
   >> African bush."   
   >  >   
   > Thanks for this information. I have for several years known about the   
   > discovery of master control genes called _homeobox genes.  This   
   > discovery in 1883, went virtually unnoticed for almost a decade. I think   
   > possibly the reason for this was because evolutionist did not know what   
   > to do with this discovery. It seemed to run completely contrary to the   
   > standard evolutionary paradigm and it was first denied or it was claimed   
   > that it had to play some minor role in evolution.   
   > But the scientist in whose lab the discovery was made, decided that this   
   > denial could not go on forever, so the scientist, Dr, Walter J. Gehring   
   > a Swiss developmental biologist who was a professor at the Biozentrum   
   > Basel of the University of Basel, Switzerland, did an experiment which   
   > proved the reality of these genes. They could not be denied. However,   
   > evolutionist entitled this _new_science_ Evo Devo short for evolutionary   
   > developmental biology. In my view, if this discovery doesn't falsify   
   > evolution it's only because Evolution is non- falsifiable - hence non   
   > science!   
   >   
   > Before I go into this, do you know about these genes?   
      
      
   are you going to say that the homeobox gene/s cannot have   
   slowly and gradually developed from precursor elements   
   but can only function as a fully formed multi-component tool-kit?   
      
   what's to stop accident theorists from claiming that this   
   is simply one of the first freakish accidents to occur?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)