[farmfriend]

Gods, Graves, Glyphs
List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.

[bondserv]

Pinging the Drs. of discussion!!

[txzman]

Interesting focus - thanks!

[Kay Soze]

Why did'nt it evolve alot more?

Is not EVERYTHING evloving?

[Mark]

Oh, this thread has nothing to do with Helen Thomas.

[VadeRetro]

What’s most amazing, ostracode experts say, is how eerily similar the soft-tissue anatomy is to that of modern relatives.

Actually, I heard it has a big old d!ck.

[VadeRetro]

Posted here without all the luddite spin.

[Orblivion]

What I think is even more pathetic is this apparent conclusion that a single or even a few instances of critters which go against Darwin's theory of Natural Selection invalidate it in it's entirety. It is still a "theory" is it not? There are millions of species of critters are there not? I suppose you may think all psychology is bunk too cause only god can know what is truly going on inside our head. I know darwin's theory isn't perfect. Doesn't mean there isn't truth to it. Creationists appear to taken the entire realm of life, existance, evolution, etc and put up a wall claiming it to be their territory alone. I personally seek the truth. Not some idea based on faith in a book. The second you attribute any single characteristic to your god, you've cheated. Who can "know" god? And those who claim to. Prove it. :)

Why isn't the theory of natural selection considered another one of gods creations?

[XBob]

1 - " Darwinists are caught in a crossfire of antagonistic evidence. Only a well-armored Darwinist could be excited about incoming bombshells like this. Only by wearing Kevlar-lined lead helmets around their brains can they keep the bullets from penetrating and the insides from exploding"

===

What a pile of crap. Lots of living things still exist which aren't evolving further. Roaches, certain 'palm' trees, alligators, ants, creationists.

[BenLurkin]

OLDEST LIVING FOSSIL

[visualops]

The moths see a light.

[ChefKeith]

You are talking about Byrd and Kennedy right?

[mylife]

Here it is

[jennyp]

blah blah blah PLACEMARKER.

[snowballinhell]

I used to be an advocate for evolution until a friend of mine told me to prove it, so off I went to prove him wrong. What I found was that there is actually very little evidence for evolution(there is evidence of micro adaptation but none for macro evolution) For example we have the graph of the evolution of horses (from smallest to largest)problem is the fossils for these horses are not found according to the geophysical table ie the "oldest" horse is not found in the oldest rock. As well I could not find evidence of ANY species evolving into another NOT ONE EXISTS. Not only have we not found the missing link (which used to be Neanderthal(sp)which has now been found to not be related to Homo Sapien) between man and ape but we have not found the missing link between any group or sub group. We can manage to find 10's of thousands of fossils from each group, but not one of the evolving fossils.
Another point was "where are the evolving species today?" question.
If we have samples of groups but no evolving samples evolution must happen quickly,but if evolution happens quickly where are the examples of quick evolution, they should be around us everywhere.
Another point most animals have way faster reproductive cycles than humans (rats every 43 days, cats and dogs every 9 months) if the cycles are 20 to 200 times faster should we not be having to wrestle the car keys from our pets by now. NOTHING ELSE BUT HUMANS, have even figured out how to come in out of the cold let alone build a automobile or a boat. Do you honestly think some day your descendants will be sitting down with your dog's descendants for tea and crumpets?...

Anyway I could find no proof, but what I have noticed is the more we learn, the more accurate the Bible becomes.
People used to call the story of the virgin birth a fairy tale, now we call it artificial insemination. People used to call the story of creation of Eve from Adam a fairy tale, now we call it cloning. The big bang theory, "Add the Lord said let there be light, and there was light.

[Grut]

The term 'survival of the fittest' is unfortunate; what Darwin ought to have used was 'survival of the fitted '. So long as an environment exists to which an organism is optimally fitted, that organism will persist without change. In fact, any examples of that organism which do change (mutate) will be selected out because they are less well fitted to that environment than their parents.

[Ichneumon]

“Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism. The Darwinian world is supposed to be a fluid world, filled with diversification, radiation, and innovation.

Sigh. Yet again a creationist reveals that he doesn't have a clue what "Darwinism" actually predicts, or any real understanding of the thing he attempts to debate against. This is called a "straw man attack", since it's like declaring victory after beating up a scarecrow instead of a real opponent.

You say "“Unbelievable stability” is not a prediction of Darwinism.". Well gee, let's see what Darwin himself actually predicted, shall we?

Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, does not strictly correspond with the succession of our geological formations; so that between each two consecutive formations, the forms of life have seldom changed in exactly the same degree. Yet if we compare any but the most closely related formations, all the species will be found to have undergone some change. When a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears. The strongest apparent exception to this latter rule, is that of the so- called `colonies' of M. Barrande, which intrude for a period in the midst of an older formation, and then allow the pre- existing fauna to reappear; but Lyell's explanation, namely, that it is a case of temporary migration from a distinct geographical province, seems to me satisfactory.

These several facts accord well with my theory. I believe in no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants of a country to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of modification must be extremely slow. The variability of each species is quite independent of that of all others. Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of modification in the varying species, depends on many complex contingencies, -- on the variability being of a beneficial nature, on the power of intercrossing, on the rate of breeding, on the slowly changing physical conditions of the country, and more especially on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species comes into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, that it should change less. We see the same fact in geographical distribution; for instance, in the land-shells and coleopterous insects of Madeira having come to differ considerably from their nearest allies on the continent of Europe, whereas the marine shells and birds have remained unaltered. We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organised productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life, as explained in a former chapter.

-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

So gibber about how "stability" for some species is not a prediction of Darwinism all you like, but you're completely and ignorantly wrong. It most certainly *is* a prediction of Darwinism, and has been since 1859. You're only 144 years behind in your scientific knowledge, which at least puts you well ahead of the many young-Earth creationists who are blissfully unaware of the 18th Century (not a typo) evidence for an old Earth (the vast age of the Earth was accepted of necessity long before either Darwin or radiometric dating were even around, contrary to what the YECs would have you believe).

If you want to disagree with what Darwin *actually* said on the matter, feel free, but you do your position a disservice when you reveal that you haven't the slightest idea what predictions he actually made, while not letting that stop you from attacking what you made up about what he said or didn't say.

It's as if creationists believe a priori that evolution must be stupid and wrong and dishonest, therefore any stupid, wrong, and dishonest thing the creationists dream up about evolution must actually be a position that evolutionists hold and therefore a valid target. I can think of no other explanation for such behavior.

It would be refreshing if for a change creationists would actually learn what evolutionary science *actually* says and then provided arguments against *that*. Instead, almost without exception I have to spend my time explaining to them why they're finding fault with what they *imagine* evolution is about instead of what it actually *is* about.

It's like someone arguing against the Bible on the grounds that Adam and Mary wouldn't have been able to get Moses on the ark in order to evade the Four Horsemen. All too many creationist critiques of evolution are similarly based on poorly grasped and jumbled bits and pieces of the actual big picture.

[Ichneumon]

Darwinists are caught in a crossfire of antagonistic evidence. Only a well-armored Darwinist could be excited about incoming bombshells like this. Only by wearing Kevlar-lined lead helmets around their brains can they keep the bullets from penetrating and the insides from exploding.

Do even *you* believe this hyperbole?

This discovery is intriguing in a "well would you look at *that*" sort of way, but your orgasm over your hope that it is any sort of "bombshell" that somehow causes any problems for evolutionary science is just goofy.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is no trump card the evolutionist cannot play. Once it is assumed that all of existence is due to natural, impersonal forces, the rest can be "explained" easily.

[Elsie]

Some animals moved back into the oceans and became whales, porpoises, manatees and sea lions in just a small fraction of this much time,
and humans emerged from grunting chimpanzees, invented language and abstract thought, and conquered space.

So 'they' say......

---

Actually, a Calvinosaurus makes as much sense.

---

What out for that movin' blowhole!