Posted on 05/31/2005 12:03:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I know enough biology to know that evolutionists have signally failed to prove that any creature has ever done anything except reproduce 'according to their kind', as Genesis chapter one says.
You sound like a Gravitationist. If your religion is correct, and God doesn't exist, why does the moon float in the sky, unaffected by so-called "Natural Forces?"
Again, you babble.
Actually you are not too far off the mark. This has nothing to do with macro evolution and the evolution of one animal to another animal. It also doesn't address what causes a gene to change these characteristics. Perhaps the creator is tweaking the code behind the scenes for all you know.
How is less of an "armor plating" on these fish an enhancement?
Does a fish becoming less insulated constitute an advancement? Does it help reduce drag and make them faster in the water?
Do the researchers explain why it helped these fish in their new environments other than the one speculative comment?
If the Eda gene is considered a harbinger of a disorder in humans, why are they considering it as an example of evolution in fish?
Not busting stones, I just wonder about these things sometimes. It is certainly easy to understand why scientists accept evolution as more fact than theory, as it is the most unifying notion which attempts to define the commonality of life on Earth.
Just the kind of non-reponse I'd expect from someone who wants to teach my children the unproven theory of Macrogravity. What's wrong with teaching the controversy? Newton was an atheist who recanted Gravitationism on his deathbed!
'according to their kind'And how would you define 'kind'?
You're the one babbling about gravitation, not me.
You know, trees, grass, pigs, ducks, moss, starfish, crocodiles, carrots, etc., etc., etc...
Every single plant and animal that is on the earth today came from a parent of its 'kind'. Would you disagree?
You know, trees, grass, pigs, ducks, moss, starfish, crocodiles, carrots, etc., etc., etc...What about lions and tigers, wolves and dogs, etc.
Every single plant and animal that is on the earth today came from a parent of its 'kind'. Would you disagree?Again, that depends on the definition of 'kind'. Most organisms are unlike their parent(s), to a varying degree. Is the ability to mate what differentiates 'kinds'?
you would have a much better case from macro, if the demostration of the stickleback didn't lose armor, but never had armor to begin with and was able to produce it.
Lions and tigers are 'of a kind'...cats.
Dogs and wolves are of a kind...they're canines, aka dogs.
Man can play with the genetics of different animals and plants in many different ways; but nonetheless, a creature is what it is; they inherit their genetics from their parents.
You know that my point is overwhelmingly valid.
Canines and felines are both carnivores.
Where would you put foxes, jackals and hyenas?
Canines and felines are both carnivores.
Where would you put foxes, jackals and hyenas?
You know that my point is overwhelmingly valid.If you don't stretch your point longer than that, sure. If a dog gave birth to a cat, the theory of evolution would go up in flames as well.
Speaking of genetics... If/when you have time, I can recommend reading this great post by Ichneumon (long but worth the read). While it probably won't convince you that species (in this case primates, including humans) evolve, it may give you a hint why scientists, in general, are convinced. When multiple lines of evidence points as strongly as this towards an explaination, it is hard to ignore (unless you're on the O.J. jury!).
You're a carnivore, too.
I wouldn't place you with foxes and jackals and hyenas....I don't think...
I'm an omnivore.
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.