Toxic Toads Evolving Super-Fast

Discovery.com (not Discovery Institute) ^ | 15 February 2006 | Larry O'Hanlon

[stylecouncilor]

[windcliff]

Perfect lol.

[zeeba neighba]

And a word to the wise toads-- big fat froglegs not necessarily good for evoluting. Especially in Oz where the barbie is popular.

[TheCrusader]

" two moths were shown together, a dark one and a light colored one. They were glued to the tree to get a good picture"

hahahahaha, thanks for the laugh, :o) Like the moths, Darwinism is coming unglued.

[editor-surveyor]

The propaganda onslaught is reaching a crescendo.

Applying this to humans, every time a child is born that is taller or shorter than it's parents, it's evilution in action.

Why then don't they wish to talk about the devolution? Humans are shorter and considerably less intelligent than they were just 4500 years ago. Don't hear any bragging going on though.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" hahahahaha, thanks for the laugh, :o) Like the moths, Darwinism is coming unglued."

No, that's just you. I made it clear why that ONE picture used the staged moths (most insect photography uses staged photos, because insects are not very patient subjects). ALL THE REST (the ones that made the case) were of single moths that were found AS THEY WERE on the trees. There was nothing wrong with the studies.

I see you have run away from my other refutations. :)

[editor-surveyor]

Hey Patrick, are any of your children different than you? Any of them more athletic by any chance?

It's this kind of deception that has rendered this country feckless, and contributed to the general moral decay. Schools now teach the value of dishonesty. (perhaps allah really does reward their trechery)

[editor-surveyor]

Isn't it amazing that the frogs with the longer legs happen to be "at the front lines." I bet that olympic long jumpers evolved longer legs as a result of being at the pit, right??

Do these evo's see how foolish they look?

[zeeba neighba]

Why do the children of Nobel prize winners generally amount to zilch? lol

[bobdsmith]

The difference is that olympic long jumpers get to the pit via mechanized transport. The frogs on the otherhand get to the front line by using their legs.

[VadeRetro]

If I were a venomous toad I'd want to be something else too.

[GrandEagle]

"But it's still a toad."
(good natured) LOL!
Pretty good prediction of our response.
This is observable. I've never disagreed that there are changes within the species - some may refer to this as evolution.
Interesting article though!

Have a great evening!
GE

[VadeRetro]

This thing ended up in the "chat" forum pretty quick.

Wasn't anything I called anyone THIS time!

[Tax-chick]

Is that a joke about the French?

[editor-surveyor]

"The difference is that olympic long jumpers get to the pit via mechanized transport. The frogs on the otherhand get to the front line by using their legs."

You're getting smarter Bob, now you should be able to look at your explanation and see why talk of evolution in this regard is laughable. The long legged among any species should be able to walk faster, but that fails to prove an advantage in getting there, and has nothing to do with evolution. What if they have advanced to their own destruction?

[editor-surveyor]

Not intentional anyway :o)

[editor-surveyor]

"This is observable. I've never disagreed that there are changes within the species - some may refer to this as evolution."

What's observable? That some toads have longer legs than others? It's always been that way, where is the change?

[Right Wing Professor]

He observed that the beaks of the Galapagos Island finches grew in the area of tenths of a milimeter as a result of draught.

Then they should have drunk bottled beer. Sheesh!

Trouble for Darwinists is, that it has been discovered that the beaks return to normal size as soon as the drought is over, meaning it is merely a built-in adaption process, not 'evolution'.

Spoken like a man who hasn't figured out Icons of Evolution is properly shelved under 'fiction'.

Anyone who wants to see this and the rest of the Crudaer's idiocy rebutted, read this

(Also, it reveals that Crusader's 'knowledge' of this area comes from reading one completely discredited book, written by a Moonie cultist.)

[Dimensio]

Problem this time for the Darwinists was that the moths were faked, and they were glued to the trees by 'scientists'.

No matter how clearly it explained that nothing was "faked" in the peppered moth study, creationists will still lie about it. Probably because creationists are by and large shameless liars.

[manwiththehands]

Another mindless "natural selection" = "evolution" BS Religion of Evolution post.

I don't have as much fun when I make fun of Mooselimbs.