Neal J. Otter is a singer/songwriter of the age of 22.
He spent most of … Read Full Bio ↴Neal J. Otter is a singer/songwriter of the age of 22.
He spent most of his teenage years chasing sounds as big as he was. They eventually led him into a pit of self-discovery, where upon he has yet to have returned.
Vanity was his only gravity, thus, driving him further and further into the shadows for balance. The music on this website was placed here because it was felt at the time, that the first songs made by mistake (at the beginning of the des-sent) were indeed the most visible from the spectrum of the earth's surface. He feeds from a bin of endless meanless - " ness." The songs are to be taken for grantite and the will of his work will seem to rival the sleeziest of bastards. However, as he was raised to be a paladin, the people's will described him as a thief.

southern fruit
Neal J. Otter Lyrics

We have lyrics for these tracks by Neal J. Otter:

the rope Down by the harbourside A boat is fastened by a…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Comments from YouTube:

Schmoikel

15y

Fantastic Video. Thanks for taking the time to post this. We need more videos (and people) like this.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens In addition, they also discovered that the Gcm-2 gene is linked to the gene ELOVL2 in zebrafish, chickens, and humans. Thus there are strong similarities in function (maintenance of Ca2+ levels), genetics (Gcm-2 gene, which is also consistently linked to the ELOVL2 gene), structure (calcium-sensing receptors), and embryonic origin (pharyngeal arches as the progenitor) between the internal gill buds of fish and the parathyroid gland of humans and other tetrapods.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens In addition, a gene called Gcm-2 (which encodes a transcription factor) was known to be expressed only in the pharyngeal arches and then in the parathyroid of mice: the researchers found that Gcm-2 was also present in both the zebrafish and the dogfish, and further, that its expression in those animals was restricted to just the pharyngeal arches and the internal gill buds.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens One of the anatomical homologies at this stage is the presence of pharyngeal arches and related structures, which are sometimes loosely called “gill slits”. Several lines of evidence indicate that pharyngeal arches in vertebrate embryos – which includes fishes and humans – are truly homologous structures. One of the latest evidences concerns the parathyroid gland in humans (and other tetrapods) and the corresponding internal gill buds in fish.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Recent experiments had shown that fish, even though they do not have parathyroid glands, do possess two genes for parathyroid hormone (PTH). The researchers examined the fish genes and found their encoded proteins contain key amino acids needed for function, which served to confirm other recent work by another group that suggested fish possess fully active PTH. They found these PTH genes were expressed, and detected parathyroid hormone in the gills.

g24417

11y↑1

When you ask detailed and specific biological questions in an evolutionary framework, the answer almost always makes good sense. When you ask the same questions in a "design" framework, you only get evasions - similar to your evasions about my questions regarding MYH16 and vestigial genes. I have yet to hear a "design" proponent produce single good answer to biological questions - they only provide good evasions.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens It was long known that the tetrapod parathyroid gland has calcium-sensing receptors, which are coded for by a gene called CasR. The authors’ detection of the expression of the CasR gene in fish gill buds established a strong functional and structural link between the gill buds of fish and the tetrapod parathyroid gland.

TonyTiger6521

13y

8DX

15y

8:46 I love the way his voice goes all low and sexy when he's saying ".. some significant devonian rock"! Niel Shubin rocks =D

g24417

11y

Do you have an alternative explanation as to why we have the MYH16 gene? A gene that if it worked it would kill us? Are you saying it somehow comports with "design"? If so, could you explain that? If not, then I don't see how you have a case against my assertions.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Life started in the seas. Long before the first terrestrial tetrapod existed, fish needed to maintain homeostasis and one of the requirements was to maintain steady levels of calcium ions, Ca2+. As with other homeostatic regulation, one of the components needed is a sensor to monitor the system. The authors investigated and found that fish have calcium-sensing receptors in their internal gill buds, which themselves are derived from the embryonic pharyngeal arches.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

So perhaps you'd care to explain the mechanism preventing small changes from accumulating to produce a big change from the starting point. Explain what keeps a bucket from being filled one drop at a time. Good luck.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑1

You've done exactly what most other creationists here do: open with what you imagine to be a strong argument and then, once that argument is dismantled, try desperately to change the subject and avoid the issue. If you're to much of a coward to stick to your guns, then perhaps you should just run along now.

kablamo9999

12y

It's always funny and sad at the same time to see people who think they know more than actual scientists in the relevant fields do.

CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY

6y↑2

Creationist Nuts need just FF to about 1:04:00. Watch it over and over...for hours or even days. Therein you will find the beauty of science.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑2

We don't expect to see a reptile birthing a mammal, we expect to see a gradient of reptiles acquiring mammalian traits until they must be classified as mammals. This is precisely what we see in therapsids like Diarthrognathus. Perhaps try being less evasive and cowardly and explain why such mosaic morphology is more consistent with Creation than evolution.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens During the long transition from a wholly aquatic life of fish to the fully terrestrial existence of most reptiles and mammals, organisms gradually lost their gills. Yet throughout the transition, they still needed to maintain homeostatic control over calcium-ion levels. Because of the known function of the parathyroid gland – maintenance of Ca2+ levels in tetrapods – it, along with PTH (parathyroid hormone), evolved during this time to meet the need.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens In addition to (1) the "almost complete" set of anatomical structures, found in humans, that already present in bony fish, and (2) the anatomical, molecular, and functional homology between the fish gill buds and the human parathyroid, there are also ... (3) The fact that human embryos start off with a very fish-like arrangement of aortae and aortic arches, which then must undergo much remodeling to end up in a human-appropriate arrangement.

g24417

11y

How do you explain the fact that we have genes that are broken and if they worked they would be mortal to our current physiology? In evolution it makes perfect sense but it does not comport with "design".

Xeno Campanoli

Just as, mathematically, there is always an infinity of unique falsehoods associated with every truth, so a cynic can always pull some shit out of their ass as an excuse that some evidence is not adequate. Detractors only have value when they can add to legitimate process, and enlightenment is not in any way dependent on them, only accidentally aided, sometimes; some very limited few times..kind of like with evolution and mutations.

ApocalypticAang

12y

"Hmmm, how major transformation can happen?" Err, "major transformation" happens over MILLIONS of years-- you know, as an accumulation/culmation of many minor "transformations".... of course, the evolutionary time-scale is pretty hard to understand if you think the earth is only 6,000 years old.

g24417

11y

Maybe you didn't understand my question, I will rephrase it. We have "vestigial genes" that no longer work, but were necessary for our ancestors in-which they still function properly. Some of our vestigial genes would kill us if they did work properly, yet we have them anyway. These are well established facts. They comport well with evolution. How to you propose these facts fit with "design"?

TonyTiger6521

13y

"chickens tears and humans tears are almost exactly the same" I don't suppose you'd mind supporting that assertion.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Further, like fish gills, the tetrapod parathyroid glands are derived from the pharyngeal arches.

g24417

11y

Why are these easy questions so difficult for you to answer? They are such easy questions that you should be able to answer that you have to respond with distractions so you hope no one will notice that you didn't answer.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens "Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince in an instant?" Which has nothing to do with evolution. Once we eliminate the strawman part of your "argument", the "logic" seems to be that if X cannot happen instantly, then it cannot happen given long periods of time either. Hopefully you can see how silly that is.

Nestor Sanchez

13y

@realhomosapiens EVIDENCE, tons of it. Lots of data from many different disciplines (geology, paleontology, biology, archeology, chemistry, tectonics, forensics and a lot of others) all pointing out to the same direction from multiple angles and starting points. Is just the most plausibleRATIONAL conclusion, the most obvious one that is supported by the data. If you can prove a better NATURAL, UNIVERSALLY VERIFIABLE explanation, that does not contradict the all the evidence

g24417

11y

how do you explain it?

Carolyn Ellis

11y

The claim that Tiktaalik is a transition between fish and tetrapods ( four-legged vertebrates ) has been devastated by the discovery in 2010 of unmistakable footprints (with digits) of tetrapods in Poland, that were made about 20 million years BEFORE Tiktaalik existed. The numerous tetrapod tracks indicated large vetebrates up to 2.5 metres in total length. The article is contained in Nature, entitled Palaeontology: Muddy tetrapod origins So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods?

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens "seems to me you didn´t see Euphorbia and Astrophytum" I already refuted you on them, because you claimed they weren't related, when they are.

g24417

11y

Really - the experts in biology including the DNA experts, all of them overlooked this thing that you know for a fact even though you admit you don't know biology or DNA. The thing you keep forgetting is that you are not an expert so you do not know what the observational evidence is. Even though you don't know what the observational evidence is, you claim you know it better than the people who do know what the evidence is - the experts. Is that reasonable to you?

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Going back some 360+ million years and including a myriad intermediate forms, we human come from certain long-extinct fish. By the way; if you kiss a zygote will it magically and instantly turn into an adult human? No. Well then, do you claim that a zygote turning into an adult human is a fairy tale?

Valnain

15y

Yeah, I've been meaning to read "Your Inner Fish." I'll get to it some day. And thanks for the other recommendation. I hadn't heard about that one.

Harry Adriel

@Jamari Lee Glad I could help :D

Valnain

Man, you are some crappy bots.

Jamari Lee

@Harry Adriel It worked and I actually got access to my account again. I'm so happy!
Thank you so much you really help me out!

Jamari Lee

@Harry Adriel i really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later with my results.

Harry Adriel

@Jamari Lee instablaster ;)

1 More Replies...

g24417

11y

Yes - MYH16 fits into the category of evidence for evolution because there is no other explanation for MYH16. Even you have admitted you have no explanation for MYH16, yet evolution answers it very well. All you can say is "no way" without any reason. This is just one specific case that we can examine right here in this tiny place There are thousands of other examples and evidence, but there is not room to explain any of them to you when you can't even understand this very simple example.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens In addition to (1) the anatomicalhuman chacteristics already present in bony fish, (2) the multiple lines of evidence showing the relationship between the fish gill buds and the human parathyroid, and (3) the fishilke arrangment of aortae and aortic arches in human embryos, there's (4) the fact that the same executive genes are used in development of a human arm (a bat wing, mouse forelimb) and the pectoral fins of sharks and otehr fish.

g24417

11y

haha - yes of course, now that you can't deny that you looked like a fish for 2 weeks all of the sudden it's not so crazy. Instead of answers, run away from evidence and science. Nice!

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Skeletal muscles -- In Sarcopterygii, muscles that move paired fins located on appendage; Tendons Most with gas-filled swim bladders; some with lungs (16 species of Birchirs & 6 species of lungfish) Testes (males); Sperm; Ovaries (females); Ova

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

Incorrect.The Polish tracks preclude Tiktaalik from being ancestral to tetrapods, something it was never claimed to be. They do not preclude it from representing a transitional stage of tetrapod evolution, which is all that was ever claimed by the discovers.

ruffo coyote

11y

Yes, I did watch it, asserting or attempting to explain that my great-great-great-grandpa was a fish, it´s not only totally unscientific, but it is the greates stupidity I´ve ever hear of, anything else?

g24417

11y

Now you have more observational data than the experts? How can that be? You have already admitted you are not a DNA expert. DNA experts know the DNA data and the DNA observations and you do know, but somehow you just know they are wrong. Can you explain how you know the evidence that you admit you don't understand better than the experts?

ruffo coyote

12y

Regarless of the time-scale you can think of, there is no way to think a weird worm cambrian marine creature could ever turn into who knows what and then into who knows what and so fort until a fish and finally a man...that is plain ludicrous

TonyTiger6521

13y↑2

@realhomosapiens "if a frog turns into a Prince by a kiss in an instant that´s a tale, " Kent, how are you posting on the Internet from behind bars???

ruffo coyote

11y

It´s sad and shamefull at the same time to see "respected" scientist to lecture like N. Shubin and not only that, to even write a book on the subject, and even worst to teach such a stupidity as it were science, no wonder why so many people strongly oppose to this type of teachings

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens (1) human anatomical preqrequisites present in fish (2) the relationship between fish gill buds and human parathyroid (3) the fishilke arrangment of aortae and aortic arches in human embryos (4) the same executive genes used in development of a human arm (a bat wing, mouse forelimb) and the pectoral fins of sharks and other fish. (5) transitional fossils - Tiktaalik and many other just for fish-to-amphibian transition, plus others for 'reptile' to mammal

Linda Joy

11y

You might try reading the book and learning what Shubin actual said so you don't make yourself look like a total idiot, if that's possible.

ruffo coyote

13y

@DNAunion Where do we come from? I mean ultimatelly...if we go enough back in time, any idea?

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

Furthermore, we know that most mutations have no effect at all, so right off your claim that they're all deleterious is nonsense. And there are many documented cases of beneficial mutation. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for one. Note that even one example is sufficient to disprove your assertion that all mutations are harmful. So are you going to put up a bit more of a fight than repeating the same logical fallacy and spouting demonstrably false statements like "mutation = bad"? I doubt it.

Valnain

15y

Another person with no education in the field, thinking he is somehow qualified to refute the work of experts. How quaint.

g24417

11y

Do you understand English? Do you understand my question? If you do understand English and you do understand my question than Everything you are saying is just a distraction from the fact that you have no answer for a very simple question - a simple question that evolution does answer.

ruffo coyote

13y

@DNAunion Hi DNA, long time no see you...Have you ever heard of a frog turning into a prince in an instant? well, except for the time and other issues the story is the very same one...frog produces only frogs but your scientific mythology asserts that given enough time plus some random mutations one of those weird cambrian marine creatures could ever turn or evolve into humans, let alone all the creatures along the road and that is a long, long scientific tale taught as science, period.

ruffo coyote

13y

Hmmm, how major transformation can happen? from one of those weird cambrian marine creatures to a fish to a human is a huge, an insurmountable transformation Neil, you`ve got to revise your scientific myth, sorry your theory...jajajajaja

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑1

Except that no available data indicates that the moon runs on gas rather than being moved by gravity whereas there's a wealth of evidence supporting evolution. Your contention is generally that the evidence does not support evolution and specifically that there is a mechanism preventing mutations from accumulating. Yet you've been laughably unable to support your position and have been reduced trying to avoid answering the question entirely.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑1

Heh, I see you've realized that you've backed yourself into a corner in addition to lacking any support for your assertions. So long, little guy. Come back to play when you've got some big boy arguments to make,

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens The origin of the parathyroid gland”, Masataka Okabe and Anthony Graham, PNAS, December 24 2004, Vol. 101, No. 51, p177716-177719. Source of the following ...

g24417

11y

Of course it looks ludicrous to you, you don't understand science and you don't look at evidence unless you like. The idea that the earth is round is a crazy idea to, but science has shown very well that the earth is not flat. There is even more evidence for evolution than a round earth. Thousands of new evidence for evolution every day.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Paired cranial nerves (10 pairs); Eyes; Retinas; Extrinsic eye muscles; Excellent sense of smell, having an olfactory bulb -- In Sarcopterygii, paired olfactory sacs may open into mouth; Jaws (and from the mandibular arch); Teeth with dentine, and with true enamel in Sarcopterygii;

ruffo coyote

11y

The experts in biology including the DNA trully believe in the very same myth we´re talking about it, is like the Catholic Church, they all used to believe in the purgatory, Why? of course you know why? Now, just because N. Shubin is considered an expert in whatever field he does hold, does not mean that he is claiming to be true, I´m not stupid enough (no offense please) to swallow the bisarre idea that my great-great-great-grandpa was a fish, that is totally ludicrous, period

thetraceur123

13y

@squirrelroks Agreed. Same here, also a Christian and very pro-science.

ruffo coyote

11y

Just because I haven´t swalled the stupid idea that my great-great-great-granpa was a fish I don´t understand science? Hmmm, believe me, sometimes science-fiction is hard to understand, let alone to provide any evidence for it

rstevewarmorycom

ruffo coyote
You're an uneducated lying piece of shit. It was more like your 350 MILLIONTH great grandfather!!

g24417

11y

You are very good at confusing yourself. I hate to inform you, but evolution predicts that bananas would share a great deal of our genes because we are related. If you don't understand MYH16 though then i don't think you will understand our relation ship to bananas. For creation though or design - this should not be the case. There is no other reason we should share so much from bananas. But you have to understand biology and DNA for it to make sense.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑1

Still unable to support your original assertion? How embarrassing for you. When you say you haven't got the time, what you mean is you haven't got an answer, otherwise you'd have provided it by now. And let's clarify something: evolutionary theory absolutely does not predict organisms that are half one thing and half another. Evolution is descent with modification (i.e. mutation), and posits that organisms will produce offspring like themselves but slightly altered

ruffo coyote

11y

Hmmm, let´s see, What explanation do you have for the sudden appearence, there you get the word, they just appeared in the fossil record, How does your myth explain the sudden appearence of so many complex and fully formed organism, all at the very same time? and don´t claim they didn´t appeared at the very same time, since they are embeded in mud side by side one another, How does your myth explain such a sudden appearence of the whole weird cambrian marine creatures?

ruffo coyote

13y

@DNAunion Well, chickens tears and humans tears are almost exactly the same and they should not, Why? All the observational data you just listed is not evidence for a humans fish ancestry, you have to add to all of that your evolutionary idea, in short you´ve got to hallucinate, but let´s assume your argumentation is correct, let´s move a little further, Which of those weird cambrian marine creatures do we evolve from and what is the evidence for it? this is going to turn very interesting

g24417

11y

Are you familiar with DNA testing? Every human has different DNA. Methods for testing DNA are accepted in all courts of law and considered such good evidence that they are used for murder cases and giving out the death penalty. This method can tell exactly who is your parent and grand parent and great grand parent. This method also reveals you are related to chimps 200,000 generations back. These are legal and scientific facts.

g24417

11y

Have you heard of Wall Street?

zencat999

13y

no more b u l l s h i t yaaaAAAAAAAAAAAA SCIENCE!

ruffo coyote

11y

I don´t need to read his science fiction books, actually I saw him lecturing in the subject, I DID hear it from his own mouth, anything else?

rstevewarmorycom

ruffo coyote
You're a delusional mal-educated piece of shit.

ruffo coyote

11y

What do I prove what? but if you thing Shubin make any point, so be it. Forget about your inner fish, a shower takes any evidence out of the water

ruffo coyote

13y

@DNAunion Hmmm, interesting, What proof or evidence do have to offer that humans come from a long extinct fish? I mean, humans and any fish are totally different creatures...that is obvious...in order to make such a claim you´ve got to have empirical evidence, I´d love to know how can you support such a super-mega-extraordinary claim...remember, empirical evidence, assumptions are not acceptable...OK?

dudev

13y

@realhomosapiens Who ever said a fish turned into a man? Nobody, that's who. But the bible does say that dirt turns into a man by magic.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

Oops, you've failed again to back up your claim. You said there was a mechanism to prevent evolution but have so far been unable to provide it. Organisms do indeed produce after their own kind, but the point is that mutations accumulate in those offspring until the animals producing after their kind are distinct from the original line. So where's your mechanism to prevent this accumulation? And address the evidence of mosaic morphologies as seen in Diarthrognathus.

ruffo coyote

11y

I bet you, but what is the claim that a human descend from a fish? What word, concept or idea would you use to refer to this notion, concept or idea?

rstevewarmorycom

ruffo coyote
Common descent.

unluckystreak

13y

@Timbul53525253 If you have to resort to SHUT UP then your argument has already failed. Obviously it is a matter of opinion since a lot of scientific explanation is not good enough for a lot of people and for some it is.

ruffo coyote

11y

Oh no, I didn´t say that, If MYH16 does exist, it has nothign to do with the stupid idea that humans evolved from a fish, that´s my point, let´s assume MYH16 is a fact, what is not a fact is the interpretation that evos hanged on it, that is my point, Why? because the explanation given for it, is based on a faulty assumption, and any conclusion based on a faulty assumption is a horrible conclusion...that´s my point

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

Animals like Diarthrognathus illustrate this transition. They posses, for example, both the quadrate-articular jaw joint found in reptiles as well as the dentary-squamosal jaw joint found in mammals. So again, provide a mechanism that prevents observable genetic mutations from accumulating to produce evolutionary change. And please try to do better than simply restating that mutation can't accumulate to produce great change like you did in your most recent post.

ruffo coyote

13y

@NestorSanchez3D So believing that my great-great-great-grandpa was a fish, it´s RATIONAL, so basically if a frog turns into a Prince by a kiss in an instant that´s a tale, but if a fish turns into a man by means of evolution in millions of years that is not a tale but science, right? do you want me to laugh at you or what?

ruffo coyote

11y

I wouldn´t pretend to have at least basic knowledge on genetics, I don´t know, I have no answer, now you respond my question, How does your myth explain such a suddend appearence of so many complex, fully formed and without any evidence of any evolutionary ancestry creatures back in the cambrian era? if you can give a satisfactory intellectually answer, you win, otherwise it will be your assumptions based on a scientific myth that claim that humans evolved from a fish, which totally delusional

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y↑1

And if you ever fact-checked the dogma you get from the Creation websites you’d know that life appears in the fossil record billions of years before the Cambrian event and that the event itself took place over a period of 80 million years. Nice try, sport. I know I've said this before, but in your next post I want you to try really hard to come up with a supporting point for your position. Though you've obviously conceded my point that there is no mechanism to prevent mutations aggregating.

g24417

11y

Then you are confused because that is evolution. MYH16 is evidence for evolution.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

Um, "genetic blueprint" is not a counter argument. You're just rewording the assertion that mutations can't accumulate to produce evolutionary change. You haven't proposed a mechanism that prevents this. What would prevent, in a certain group of reptiles, a series of mutations that produce morphologies we now categorize as "mammalian" from accumulating until the end result is a mammal?

Nestor Sanchez

13y

@realhomosapiens feel free to publish your results, and turn the scientific world around with your undeniable case for a 6000 year old Earth and Intelligent Design. Until then, your beliefs are not any different from any other myth regarding Creation from cultures all over the world from the bronze age: interesting and sometimes beautiful tales that have no connection with reality and are easily disproved using our current knowledge.

TonyTiger6521

13y

@realhomosapiens Still waiting for you to support your assertion that chicken tears are almost exactly the same as human tears.

g24417

11y

Ah ok - you don't have an answer. Also you think you have to be a DNA expert to know the implications of having vestigial genes? The DNA experts say it is evolution. If you are not an expert, why are you arguing with the experts? There is no such thing as a scientific myth by definition. Science can be wrong and all it takes is some evidence to show that it is wrong. However, all the experts have looked at this evidence and they all agree it is evolution.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

And try a bit harder than "Reality is my evidence" That's more than a little pathetic. The point of arguing a position is to support your view of reality, so you're really begging the question here. I could have easily said "reality is my proof", but recognizing that for the cop-out and logical fallacy that it is I chose to support my opinion, something of which you've thus far been incapable. I predict your response will be nothing more than another empty claim of victory devoid of any support.

Valnain

14y

@CrossfireCritic You misunderstood. That comment was a response to timmysame's post.

Linda Joy

11y

You might want to actually read the book before posting and making your ignorance public.

ruffo coyote

13y

@DNAunion So basically when you have no arguments and not willing to conduct any objetive research name calling is your argument?...no my dear DNAunion, you´re millions years away from the truth and I do really encourage you to conduct a serios and objetive research on the data, I understand that such a research can lead you exactly where you don´t want to go, but if it´s so, so be it. and there are more facts that you´re willingly ignoring, this is not an educational debate, sorry for you

ruffo coyote

11y

Sure I do, Do you understand mine? A simple question that based on a myth you have been misleade to take as a scientific explanation, but nothing if farest from the true. Evolution is the scientific myth roaming in every single class room all over the world that a bob-sponge turned into a worm, such a worm miraculously turned into a fish, that fish jumped out of water or turned into an amphibian (no evidence) and that little jumpy-fishy turned into you don´t even know what and so on, funny

g24417

11y

Your claims here are simply wrong. This is a distraction. Don't create distractions when you don't have answers. The original question is how does MYH16 comport with design? Answer that question and I will be glad to answer one of your questions.

g24417

11y

You are avoiding the question again.

Ianosauruscanadensis

11y

I called that one. No supporting points at all. Just begging the question again. You know what a logical fallacy is, right? And you did say there was a mechanism: "the mechanism you asked about is genetic blueprint" But you've realized that "genetic blueprint" isn't an answer and are incapable of identifying the mechanism you were so certain existed. Also, I have given just one example of evidence (Diarthrognathus and its mosaic morphology) and you've been too cowardly to even address it.

ruffo coyote

11y

Because the bananas is even more funny, let alone ludicrous, but that´s fine, enjoy yourself, and have a nice one

shinobi1kenobi75

11y

You have presupposed a position and want me to take a contrary position and by such give credence to your presupposition. It's like my asking you, what mechanism prevents the moon from running out of gas and having to pull over? The original position is flawed. No matter what you will believe what you want to believe because to you the alternative is unthinkable.

ruffo coyote

11y

Sure, don´t tell me evolutionary algoritms are used to predict . . . .?

ruffo coyote

11y

I don´t know myself, well doubtable, but assumint that, therefor I´m not going to pretend to know it, and assert that my great-great-great-grandpa was a fish, that´s is ridiculuous and anti-scientific too

g24417

11y

There is no Wall near Wall Street. Why does it have the name Wall Street?

ruffo coyote

11y

Tell me something, Do you really believe your great-great-great-grandpa was a fish? if yes, Why?

ruffo coyote

11y

What? humans related to bananas? Again, there was a man outside the White House almost exactly to G. W. Bush, according to your myth they were twins, right? sorry they were not, they were not even relatives let alone twins Similarities does exist, but the interpretation given on these similarities is a strong hallucination, come on, you won´t tell your son, son, he is your grandpa, and this old man (photo) was your great-grandpa and this fish is your great-- - -grandpa, he is gonna laugh at you.

ruffo coyote

11y

Secondly, personal gullibility does not turn into a fact, that given enough time, those slightly modifications will add up and the end result will be a fish turning into a human, and yeap, that´simply ludicrous, and not only that, that´s not scientific, whether you can deal with it or not