1 posted on
05/05/2004 1:52:08 PM PDT by
Junior
To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer; Ichneumon
Patrick, if you'd do me the honors...
2 posted on
05/05/2004 1:52:44 PM PDT by
Junior
(Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)
To: Junior
They believe it was evolutionary selection Religion is religion.
4 posted on
05/05/2004 1:54:32 PM PDT by
biblewonk
(No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them.)
To: Junior
Hmmm, common design.... common Designer?
5 posted on
05/05/2004 1:55:38 PM PDT by
FLcitizen
To: Junior
"Nature does it best in terms of design," Nature does nothing -"nature" does not exist. "Nature" is a word used to describe the material part of all existence. There is no entity we can call "nature" that is supposedly doing anything. And "nothing" can't "design". Design is the product of intelligence, not chance. This statement in nonsense! Typical of scientists with materialistic presuppositions.
To: Junior
The author used the word "design" four times in the article.
Kind of hard to get away from that word in a story like this.
9 posted on
05/05/2004 2:03:57 PM PDT by
fishtank
To: Junior
There are a lot of commonalities in biology.
Eyes and Wings are two others.
14 posted on
05/05/2004 2:31:07 PM PDT by
Centurion2000
(Resolve to perform what you must; perform without fail that what you resolve.)
To: Junior
It's called convergent evolution- Similar structures arising independently.
15 posted on
05/05/2004 2:37:27 PM PDT by
Wacka
To: Junior
I'll say it did. You can't even tell it's fish at all.
What's that? Oh, not 'fast food fish?'
Nevermind.
16 posted on
05/05/2004 2:40:14 PM PDT by
Petronski
(Hubris knows no editor.)
To: Junior
"evolving separately for millions of years"..."Nature does it best in terms of design," Compare that to the few hundred years it took man to fly and then fly to the moon....I'll take the human development cycle over the evolutionary one.
18 posted on
05/05/2004 2:41:03 PM PDT by
Uncle Miltie
(Islam: Nothing BEER couldn't cure.)
To: Junior
Shark tastes nasty to matter how related to tuna it is.
22 posted on
05/05/2004 2:43:36 PM PDT by
Saturnalia
(My name is Matt Foley and I live in a VAN down by the RIVER.)
To: Junior
At one time this was called convergent evolution, as opposed to divergent evolution.
To: Junior
I have caught Tuna and I have caught Mako's...They are anything but similar.
The shark is a cartilaginous creature whose fins cannot articulate, and the Tuna is a bony fish whose fins not only articulate, but fold into recess' in its body.
There are so many dissimilarities with these two species its not funny.
To: Junior
"Lamnid sharks, which include mako and great whites, have been separated on the evolutionary tree from bony fishes, such as tuna, for over 400 million years. But the muscles and tendons that enable them to swim so fast are remarkably similar."
That such "coincidences" are mathematically improbable doesn't trouble Evolutionists in the least.
That such obvious examples of DNA code re-use, in which genetic subroutines skip generations (and species) to be re-used...likewise doesn't bother Evolutionists.
But historians will laugh at such people in less than a century (especially if any laid off techie programmers make a move into the History field).
Code re-use is prima fascia evidence of Intelligent Intervention, by the way. Ask any software engineer.
44 posted on
05/05/2004 7:49:53 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Junior
oh...I just realized the headline says FAST fish. I thought it said FAT fish. Now that would be interesting. :o)
89 posted on
05/06/2004 6:24:57 PM PDT by
arasina
(So there.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson