Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
Cite the experiments and tell us what new creature was developed.
...by design dare you say...??
Via an intelligent process no-less! :)
Speaking of adapting...as far as I can tell, Adam and Eve had no need of wearing a coat, or even clothes for that matter, yet once they were aware they were living in a fallen world, that first chill of winter wind may have necessitated the *adaptation* of the first coat worn by humans.
Maybe it was later, or by someone else, I don’t have any idea, wasn’t there, but obviously humans *adapt* and as they traveled all over the world, came across all kinds of extremes and conditions and dangers and they adapted. The point is what we didn’t do is *evolve*.
Also, not only could scientists not develop (*CREATE*) a new species, but life PERIOD!
Man has been selectively breeding livestock and domestic animals for thousands of years and it has gotten us what, exactly?
Pay attention, I did cite the example. Just Google the Drosophila experiments. I am aware of at least two new species of fruit flies that have been created in the lab. Dr. William Rice and Dr. G.W. Salt bred created the Drosophila melanogaster strain and Dr. Diane Dodd was also able to show speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies. The proof that they are new species is that these new species are not able to breed with the original species.
There are numerous other examples of successful allopatric speciation in the lab. You can find examples of sympatric speciation in the literature as well.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118
microevolution vs. macroevolution
I got this from the dissentfromdarwin.org website.
If they're new species, as opposed to variations of fruit flies, then why are they called fruit flies?
Does that make a Chihuahua and Great Dane different species?
Wolves and dogs are technically different species and can interbreed freely.
Designating something as a different specie in a bid to find support for the ToE is intellectually dishonest.
They're still stinking fruit flies.
What is intellectually dishonest is manipulating the language and the facts to prove your point.
A a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name, They are defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
If you had actually treated the discussion and the facts less casually you would have learned that the new species were incapable of interbreeding.
They are both called fruit flies for the same reason that both hammerheads and great whites are both called sharks.
This fruit fly nonsense was 1999ish? These libtards keep coming up with embarassing missing links, and apparently there’s simply no shame...I mean this was unraveled back in the 20th century for heaven’s sakes! LOL
Wow, ad hominem attacks do not mask or give credibility to your overly wordy and scientifically illiterate response. I offered some specific examples and you responded with some studies on spontaneous mutations in rhabditid nematodes. In the words of the late Mo Howard; "What a maroon".
Here are some from Wikipedia but everyone is free to make up or mix their own as the Darwinists do:
Typological species
Morphological species
Biological / Isolation species
Biological / reproductive species
Recognition species
Mate-recognition species
Evolutionary / Darwinian species
Phylogenetic (Cladistic)
Ecological species
Genetic species
Phenetic species
Based on phenotypes
Microspecies
Cohesion species
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)”
I would say by some of the above definitions the Hatfields and McCoys would be distinct species since they refused to interbreed. Or Some of the Indian tribes. Or maybe one African tribe with another.
"Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." - Genesis 2:19
I’ll reply this time only for the purpose of reminding you that I will ignore all future posts from you.
That would be the answer ta a prayer.
Reading remains fundamental. Look again confucius. You told metmom to pay attention too, along with some other smarmy liberal insolence, but the problem was you gave her some nonsense about fruit flies bearing...more fruit flies, hard as that is to believe. From the late 20th century no less.
And obviously you didn’t learn from your projections toward metmom about paying attention did you?
Liberals set the rules with ad hominem attacks, strawmen, red herrings and endless projections, so if you can’t handle your own rules, AKA the proverbial heat in the kitchen, just say so!
No need in getting your underwear all in a bunch, just stipulate in the future that you can’t handle your own rules and you get this like rash...allergic reaction and we can respond, you know, without your rules and present just the facts.
We really don’t want you getting that undies bunching rash and instead maybe give you some warm milk or something along with the facts.
The situation would be similar to the tabby cats at my house being uwilling to breed with the cats at your house even though a few generations ago they all had the same parents. How would they be a new species?
They wouldn't but such is the intellectual three card monte of the Darwinists.
(from Wikipedia)
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Intelligent Design is the creation of life while Evolution is the reaction of life to its changing surroundings.
Of course there is still the Colossal Coincidence Theory.
It requires infinite credulity to believe that the changes we observe in biological systems actually created those biological systems.
The implications of making such a statement... just wow.
"I would not expect"... well, who are YOU?
This is the same kind of ignorant arrogance exhibited in those who present the "problem of evil" dillema, as if they know anything but a very small part of the big picture.
(metmom - my comments are directed at the statement, not at you)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.