You are still rambling.  Stick to the question.

Present the genetic evidence that allows a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones that allows it to produce a life form with bones.

I guess you keep beating around the bush because you have no answer.

k

>>You know, over the years you keep using this phrase. Why do you assume that a life form with no bones has "no need for bones"? Certainly a life form with no bones probably has no gene for bones (actually, it's a whole bunch of genes working together in sequence, not just one gene), but you always put that "no need for bones" in there.<<

I use  "no need for bones" to emphasize that it seems to have gotten along quite well without them and according to evolutionists, it would have taken at leat 1000's of years to develope them. 
"Actually there is no evidence that a "whole bunch of genes" are necessary to develop bones.  If that was true, it make the problem harder to explain.

>>Is it ever possible that an organism that doesn't have a particular characteristic, will be better off if it acquires that characteristic?<<

Possibly but irrelevant.  It can't acquire a characteristisc for which its parents did not have the gene.

k

>>> Consider the shark. Sharks have no bones. <<<

< You are still rambling. .....

Just replying to your "rambling" posts.

< Stick to the question. Present the genetic evidence that allows a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones that allows it to produce a life form with bones.

Why would you think that I would have the details of the genetic evolution of cartilage to bone? Any more than you would be able to explain the molecular compostion of your hair, or how ones and zeros enable us to communicate in cyberspace.

But I am still curious, why would you have more doubts that soft body tissue evolved into cartilage and then into bone, than that a snake "talked"? Or that the earth "stood still"?

Oh, and have you heard that recently they have found "Ardi", our oldest human ancestor from 4.4 million years ago.

>>Since you won't believe any evolutionary example I give, here's a non-evolutionary one. It took mankind thousands of years to develop writing. <<

You have no evidence to support that claim.  Also, you can't compare what man's mind might do with what biology will do.  Man's minds wander all over the place looking for truth, Biology follows a direct  path to do exactly what it was designed for.

>>Clearly mankind did not NEED writing, since we didn't die out before it for the lack of it. Are you better off with it or without it?<<

Irrelevant.

>>And no, it doesn't make it harder to explain. Consider the shark. Sharks have no bones.<<

Why do sharks have no bones?  Many life forms have no bones.  Why is that?

>>But you do agree that it's possible that an organism that doesn't have a particular characteristic will be better off it it acquires that characteristic.<<

No I don't but you are continuing to avoid answering the question---how is genetically possible for a life form with no gene for bones to produce an offspring with bones.

k

>>Why would you think that I would have the details of the genetic evolution of cartilage to bone?<<

I will take this as an admission that you have no scientific evidence to support what you believe.  If you ever get any, get back to me.

k

>>Do you know what "mutate" means?

More appropriate, do you know what a mutation does?  <<

First, you've failed to answer his question.

Second, you are not the arbiter of what is appropriate or more appropriate or less appropriate. 

Third, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he knows what a mutation does.  Can you demonstrate the same?

...  Man's minds wander all over the place looking for truth, Biology follows a direct  path to do exactly what it was designed for.

So millions of species were "designed" to go extinct?  What would be the advantage of that?

Seems to me that if it were an actual design, that it's a very very stupid one.

Loren

>>> avoid answering the question---how is genetically possible for a life form with no gene for bones to produce an offspring with bones. <<<