Concerning the hind-legs of the whale, i found on some web pages
that shows the muscles that are attached to the "hind-legs". It was
from here that you will notice that bone is not a "hind leg", but
it is like a pivot bones for the muscles that contols movement
(expand, contract) of the reproduction organs for the whale
I knew, of course, that some
modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each
of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor.
... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which
evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a
second limb bone.
However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean
with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally
different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I
indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to
explain on the basis of a creation model."
-Carl Wieland
Found it there in the website. He is suppose to help
christians.
Found tis further down
Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and
fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.
They really found leg hanging, and even have some toes emerging
out from it. I don't know man.. wat is your explanation on a whale
to develop out a foot with toes ? Surely a reproduction system
can't have toes ?
As for the tail on the child, the site did say that it is very
uncommon. When i first read it the first thing that came to my mind
people with an extra thumb or finger. A part of the site says that
the tail could be due to genetic mutation and thus slight chance
inheritance. But another part say it could be the tail that human
was supposed to gathered from the monkeys. So there is a slight
contradiction that the site didn't explain further. I will tend to
believe to be more of a genetic mutation since the recorded cases
can be counted with just 2 hands.
I asked an doctor friend of mine casually about why the human
embryo seems that have a tail. He said that it is not a tail but
actually the embryo spine. He explained that the spine have to be
developed first in the embryo before the limbs and other organs can
be developed. It like the foundation of a building. Interestingly
he added that everyone has a "tail-bone", but that bone is not for
a tail. It is commonly known as the tail bone because is the last
column of the spine down near the buttocks. The bone, like the
"hind-legs" of the whale, have 6-9 muscles connected to it that
controls the mucles of the anus. If you remove that bone, you will
be like a free flowing chocolate cake machine. Sorry for the
language. This does not go to prove that we came from apes.
Having a mutation on of extra eye, extra toes or no kidneys r
easy. But having an organ tat was never found in the body before is
diffcult. Tis is not about the tail bone, it is about a tail. For
the tail bone, they just name it "tail bone", and it is nothing
about tails mentioned here. They r talking about tails here, not
tail bone and it is a bit... wierd to talk about tail bone when the
things they r discussing is tail. They have already accounted for
mutated spine bones in the passage Pseudo-tails are not true tails; they are
simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal
region of newborns, often associated with the spinal column,
coccyx, and various malformations. The focus on the article
is not about these pseudo-tails
As indicated in the passage, these real tails r can move voluntary. Please take a look at
the picture. These picture will explain the difference between
tails and tail bones.
http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.html
And surprisingly, these tails appears to be inherited. It appears
to occur down a line of families. They even have a good explanation
on the genes found on human tat support the growing of tails, NOT
tail bones. For human, they develop another gene tat will remove
the tail in the later stage of growth.
About the chromosomes, what i wanted to highlight is that there
is such a huge difference in the DNA structure of living things and
it will really out of this world to say that all this living things
came from a single bacteria millions of years ago. Evolution is
about chance, like a lottery. The odds is more than billion to one.
Again i am not a scientist, but taking the example of a chimp and a
human. Although the two DNA structure are 95% similar, that 5%
difference means there is a difference in millions of molecular
stucture betweent the 2 DNAs, yet it will only take just 3
molecular strcuture changes to the DNA to kill either a chimp or
human.
I have said many times before, they have infinite many site for
reaction and infinite many times to perform a reaction. If it is
one billion to one, it is actually pretty high.
about the example of a chimp and human. When the molecular
difference changes by these 3 molecules, they just die and their
faulty genes is never pass down to decendent, aka extinct. BTW gene
r develop to make the species "fitter", thu they r not probably
going to developa gene tat will kill them. The rest of the
unevolved species will evolved in other ways and some will form
human while the other will form chim. Know of genetic algorithm ?
Although it is a programing code and nothing link with bio, but
evolution bio works in a similar way but in a more efficient
manner. The random occurances or changes of a possible answer can
give out solution faster than other calculation even when the
probability of this is little.
I don't belive any one can live to past 200 years old now. But
back then in the Noah's time, yes
The whole issue is u claiming the "air becomes bad" after the
flood and saying tat in the past people lived for hundreds of years
while we now can live up till 100 at most. When noah clearly can
live 350 years before he dies, isn't tat a clear proof tat the air
do not goes bad and dinosaur do not die because their nostrils r
small
There must be millions of pores on the skin of the earth
worm
true, but the air has never gone bad so your assumption is
wrong
Counting of rings may not be accurate because there is a thing
called dead rings. Could be caused by atmospheric changes, (Hey,
the flood!), climatic changes (The flood again.).
U don't even believe in the counting of rings ?!?! U know why ring
is accurate to count age ? they r develop because they grow
differently during the different seasons. It can only fail due to
seasonal difference, NOT a flood, climatic or atmospheric
difference. It will not form a ring or lesser rings because the
flood doesn't last for thousands of years. Com'on man, please don't
anyhow throw away tis ancient and accurate way of assessing age for
trees anyhow. U just wanna throw away any method of counting age
just because all accurate ways of accessing age points to the fact
tat the earth is older than wat bible predicted ? Surely radio and
tree rings have result tat r similar. U still wanna throw it away
?
Talking about petrified trees, many petrified trees are found
stuck vertically in 3-4 layer of rocks where each layer was
supposed to be formed only through millions of years.
So ? Tat is why it is accurate isn't it ? U mean trees still
grow under layers of rocks ? These rings r a true indication of its
age before it dies isn't it ?
As with carbon dating, i just want someone to tell me how would
a scientist determine which one shows a correct result since the
percentage of right and wrong estimate seems to be like 50-50.
Who says the odds r 50-50 ? The odds r 99 when it is done by an
expert, using a suitable specimen in an professional condition. U
think scientist r dumb and do not argue on such high inaccuracies
if it is so ? Someone even win a nobel prize for finding cardon
dating ! The data fround after radio of a tree and the number of
rings found r found to match. Surely tis is an verified means of
assessing age ?
Finally, i also want to know how the very FIRST bacteria, the
ancestor of ALL living things, was formed
No one knows for sure. But do u know how does god get created ?
We do not know how the first bacteria is formed, but it doesn't
means we give up and just rely on supernatural to explain stuffs.
If we keep using supernatural to explain stuffs, men r very little
from animals then. If we don't know we try to find it out. Tat
should be a good starting moltivation to find the truth. Not just
don't search at all and rely on theories tat were never proven or
verified. BTW scientist r pondering on a few possible reasons for
why life begins. It is hard to perform the experments out and even
if the did so, they may have to try for billions of times before
life can occur. They also have a natural apprehension tat religion
will slam them hard, much like wat happened in the olden
days.
