Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
To recap as briefly as possible, there really should have been a New Fly by now. Not for this particular "scientist"--but because fruit flies have been the toys of geneticists for hundreds of years--tens of thousands of generations of flies in experiments--geographical isolation, as there have been scientists all over the world for decades playing with flies--thousands of attempts at selecting out for type and features.
Still, no new fly. It really should have happened, if it truly happens so easily in nature.
This article about hippos and whales would have been far better just adding to our knowledge of how species have astounding genetic ties. BTW--the interrelatedness of hippos/horses/whales has been well-known on other evidence for decades because of skeletal studies. These theories of how one species just POP out of another are laughable--and when "scientists" start making these wild extrapolations,it is to laugh.
I told you. I don't want to waste my time teaching you elementary biology. I will gladly leave you alone if you stop posting nonsense.
No, the theory of evolution stated that whales and hippos came from a single common ancestor. This recent finding lends more evidence to that idea.
Evolutionists have hundreds of millions of years to study the patterns of the evolution of species and apply this to the future. C'mon, it works both ways, what's my cousin the snail going to be when he is no longer a snail. He's going to have to be something!
Your keen analysis makes it more likely we are related to bananas.
Try reading for comprehension.
I suppose it was the prompting of the spirit which led you to post the above quotes?
On average a life form speciates about 3 or 4 times in a million years. I think you have awhile to wait before you will see a fly turn into some other "kind".
Yes, the Spirit of Truth.
You are bearing false witness again.
Sigh -- it's the SAME THING.
Consider this: You are descended from your cousin's grandfather, *and* your cousin is descended from *your* grandfather...
Think about it.
If you *still* have trouble with the concept, I have a nice two-by-four around here somewhere...
And what I said earlier is still valid, you guys must think people are stupid or something,
Well, that's certainly the way the evidence points, anyway...
but dont you dare call it science.
We call it science because it *is* science. If you disagree, feel free to explain why. Make sure you know what "science" actually is, first.
Sure, just tell me what environmental changes will take place in the future and what features that the modern snail lacks to deal with these changes. Your question is akin to me asking you what color hair your great, great, great, great grandchildren will have. You have no way of knowing now who subsequent generations of your descendents will marry and have children with. Therefore, at this time it is impossible for you to even pose a reasonable guess as to the answer to my question. That doesn't mean that the laws of genetics don't work. It just means that you have insufficient information to answer such a question. Similarly, there is insufficient information available to determine the future evolutionary course of any given modern organism. As I said earlier, absent any changes in the environment that modern organisms aren't able to currently deal with, there should be no evolution. Evolution makes no requirement that ALL species must undergo major changes over time. If an organism is well suited to its environment and that environment doesn't change, then that organism will remain relatively unchanged.
"Speciate", the verb of the day! Where's my dictionary! I'll use it in my next pick-up line.
Ouch, that'll leave a mark!
Again I pose my question.
If God has a hand in the affairs of men, (through inventions, rulers, sickness and politics, etc.), does it not make sense he could also have a hand in the affairs of animals.
Does God limit Himself to human affairs only? That would be kind of limiting, don't you agree.
I can't do any sort of double-blind study for three million years ago-- I can't prove you wrong, so you can't prove me wrong, either.
Stalemate.
In which case, I would advise these ersatz prophets of Eternity to tone down their sermonizing.
But, wouldn't you think, since we've been playing with fruit flies for about three hundred years...in Beijing, Detroit, Florence, Terra Fuego...and generations could well be in the hundreds of thousands...all those scientists playing Red Eye , Black Eye, Wingless, Albino with these flies ....
Wouldn't you think we'd at least get a New Fly, if the theory has anything to it at all? It'd sure bolster your religion and its dogma--which may be why so many scientists claim to have Given Life when they clearly have not.
No, since as anyone who's not completely ignorant on the subject already knows, evolution is a change in populations across generations, not a sudden functional alteration within a specific individual.
So are you just playing dumb -- or are you not playing?
The same question pertains to your amazingly uninformed rant about the fruit flies, too.
Well! I'll be a monkey's uncle! You sure said a mouthful there! But with all the hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary evidence and records of enviromental changes and predatory changes and all the history of all past changes if one wanted to could one SPECULATE on what that robin go after that worm will be 500,000 years from now? Is that enough time for him to speciate a couple of times? (my new word!)
Well, Darwin was right, but I wouldn't call him the greatest ever. It isn't like he invented the light bulb, ice cream, or general relativity.
Those are biggies, too! :P
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.