Not to mention that Thor seems to find it impossible to take anything that I say seriously as he believes that he is older and therefore wiser than me. Gee, you hate that bullshit argument too?
-
How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith an
-
Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:How do we know that the change in color doesn't make it more likely to get eaten by something else?Didn't you read the article? Or bob's quote from it? The researcher observed predation of the moths. It was birds.I'm very familiar with this case. It's one of the times where scientists involved tried to fake the data. More on this later. Quote: Quote:Is a mutated gene going to make a fish grow feathers and fly?Not one gene, but in stages, yes. We are beginning to see how genes for one purpose derived from genes for another. The only difference between a fish and a bird is in the genes, and the great majority of them are identical.OK...and how long does it take to happen? Darwin studied over 3,000 species and never found one in the process of evolving. Again...HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE for all these "random" mutations to happen in just the right sequence? BTW, saying the great majority of genes are identical between a fish and a bird is a misleading statement. Even if most are identical, we're talking literally thousands of differences in gene sequencing. Once again, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE??? (Testing your common sense here, as well as aptitude in statistical math.) Quote: Quote:Then figure in it happening at least twice, otherwise there'd be little to no chance of those mutations being passed on.No, this is incorrect. Most significant evolutionary steps will have taken place in very small isolated pressured populations with heavy inbreeding. When brothers and sisters are mating, a single mutation will end up in both chromosomes of some individuals of the next generation but one.Since evolution has not been observed, your statement above has no scientific evidence as its basis. What you state as fact is really just theory, and only theory. Same way they taught it in school...what a coincidence. Quote: Quote:The more you know about natural selection and evolution, the more glaringly apparent that is.But you know very little about it, while people who study it know a lot. OK...back to my first response. Scientists faking evidence. Seems to me if the evidence had truly existed there would be no need to fake anything. Apparently, those scientists agree with me...no you. The question then becomes, why did they do it? Can you say "agenda"??? I thought so.
-
Here's an article on bob's moth...a little more revealing and truthful one:
[http://www.discovery.org/a/4198][0]
[0]: http://www.discovery.org/a/4198 -
(Not really directed at Thor he was just the last to comment)
Last week, or maybe two weeks ago, I was reading an article where a species of shark has the gene to grow arms/legs. I thought that was pretty interesting. Supposedly the reason this species never grew arms/legs is because environmentally they don't have a reason to do so. That doesn't mean that thousands or millions of years from now (if the planet is still here lol) this species might not occur some change that makes them "activate" the gene and begin to evolve.
-
Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyself(Not really directed at Thor he was just the last to comment)Last week, or maybe two weeks ago, I was reading an article where a species of shark has the gene to grow arms/legs. I thought that was pretty interesting. Supposedly the reason this species never grew arms/legs is because environmentally they don't have a reason to do so. That doesn’t mean that thousands or millions of years from now (if the planet is still here lol) this species might not occur some change that makes them "activate" the gene and begin to evolve. Interesting. Got a link?
-
Still trying to find it lol.. Remember it was a a couple weeks ago so a lot of back digging. Though not like I would lie about something like this regardless. It was actually a main topic on Yahoo when it was published.
-
okay I was a little off.. it was fingers and toes not actual arms and legs.. I was close lol. I could not find the exact article I read but I found two that were similar:http://planktonforums.org/viewtopic.php?p=54714&sid=688ae979bdbfea0774ce3ec1cb3fffcehttp://www.dailyindia.com/show/166352.php/Sharks-had-genes-to-grow-fingers-and-toes
-
I don't have time to answer most of this, but for those who believe that evolution of new species has never been observed might usefully start with the Wikipedia article on speciation, noting particularly the section on artificial speciation, and references therein.
-
Originally Posted By: IneligibleI don't have time to answer most of this, but for those who believe that evolution of new species has never been observed might usefully start with the Wikipedia article on speciation, noting particularly the section on artificial speciation, and references therein. Without going into the details, it seems to me that the term "artificial" negates the term "natural"...as in "natural selection". Artificial natural selection? Hmmm. I think that's called a contradiction in terms.Bottom line: There is NO evidence that "natural" natural selection (as in, "without the interference of mankind") has anything to do with evolution. Can man manipulate genes to produce new species? Probably...but how did the animals evolve until man arrived on the scene?
-
Originally Posted By: bobaliciousWell, Audrey 2 obviously evolved on another planet, simple! Where's your proof, Bubba!