[sheltonmac]

A better question would be, "How likely is evolutionist extinction?" Does anyone else find it strange that the theory of evolution must constantly evolve in order to avoid becoming extinct? It's also interesting to note the consistent use of phrases like "current estimates suggest..." and "more experiments need to be done..." as well as references to the baffling phenomenon of sudden "fits and starts" that defy traditional evolutionary thought.

It seems whenever people start to lose interest some "scientist" comes up with another wacky idea that can't be tested, can't be observed and can't be proven as a way of explaining the inadequacy of their original theories - a lengthening of the evolutionary telomeres, if you will. (By the way, if you took a small group of humans and had them inbreed for awhile you would probably get the same results you would get with lab mice.)

[Modernman]

oes anyone else find it strange that the theory of evolution must constantly evolve in order to avoid becoming extinct? It's also interesting to note the consistent use of phrases like "current estimates suggest..." and "more experiments need to be done..." as well as references to the baffling phenomenon of sudden "fits and starts" that defy traditional evolutionary thought.

Any honest scientist will tell you that part of the deal of being a scientist is accepting the fact that theories change, are replaced or are disproven over time. That's just the nature of the beast.

[Ichneumon]

Does anyone else find it strange that the theory of evolution must constantly evolve in order to avoid becoming extinct?

What I actually do find strange is how often creationists repeat this canard. Contrary to their myths about it, the fundamentals of the theory of evolution really haven't changed much from Darwin's first insights, although certainly lots of the corners have been filled in through over a century of studies (like the burgeoning field of DNA analysis, for example).

It's also interesting to note the consistent use of phrases like "current estimates suggest..." and "more experiments need to be done..."

Yes, exactly -- science is always on the lookout to learn more. Unlike, say, those who feel a 2000+ year old book already has all the answers they need.

as well as references to the baffling phenomenon of sudden "fits and starts" that defy traditional evolutionary thought.

[Reagan voice:] Now there you go again...

The "sudden fits and starts" were predicted by Darwin himself in 1849, so they hardly "defy traditional evolutionary thought", son. Would you care to try another creationist misrepresentation, or are you going to be wise enough to stop here?

It seems whenever people start to lose interest some "scientist" comes up with another wacky idea that can't be tested, can't be observed and can't be proven as a way of explaining the inadequacy of their original theories -

No they don't, but thanks for yet another misrepresentation. You're on a roll.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mankind will inhabit planet earth for exactly the number of days God has ordained from before the foundation of the world, even before Spielberg's mythic dinosaucers supposedly soared skyward.

Dinosaucers! I'm going to remember that one. 8~)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And I'd take anything from the Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna with a giant saltlick.