Posted on 08/17/2005 7:44:13 AM PDT by PApatriot1
Did you hear the news? Evolution is no longer a theory. It’s a fact! I know, I can’t believe it either. Wait, you haven’t heard about this breakthrough discovery? Well, you might want to check with Professor Colin Purrington, an evolutionary biologist who teaches at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. Professor Purrington says, “Evolution is a ‘theory’ like gravity is a ‘theory.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Thats the Russian experiement isn't it?
Wolves and dogs can be interbread. I don't remember about this fox thing.
I suspect that isolated populations may take a considerable period of time before breeding becomes completely impossible.
The subject of mules relates here.
Like when My cat got caught by a tom, her kittins were all kinds of different looking cats, thats micro-evolution I guess.
I'm a fleabit peanut monkey All my friends are junkies That's not really true I'm a cold Italian pizza I could use a lemon squeezer What you do?(The Rolling Stones - "Sweet Neo-Con")
It's really up to the evolution critics to propose some mechanism that prevents two isolate populations from becoming reproductively isolated, as with horses and donkeys.
It is also part of the unfinished business of evolution to explain why some lines, like dogs, have more variability than others. It's an interesting problem.
If we could change DNA wouldn't we be able to cure certain genetically "caused" (predisposed) diseases immediately? That would be a pretty slick deal, like a "Search and Replace" function in word processing.
While we have made great advances in genetics and DNA, I doubt we will ever see the ability to change all the DNA molecules in animals or humans to the "improved" engineered version. Perhaps we may be able to change a DNA strand in a zygote and pass the improvements onto the next generation, but not beyond that.
I think you are worng. There are already experimental treatments that use viruses to alter DNA in adults. They may not work yet, but the technique shows promise.
definition of bible Bible
Round with four corners, eh? Last time I checked, a circle was not a sphere, and the sun didn't actually travel around the earth.
As for the infinite number of stars, Bruno was burned to death by Christians for saying something like that.
The ancients weren't just a bunch of rubes just hangin' around the cave. They were able to observe and deduce many things we assume only modern man is capable of observing. I've heard this arugument stated this way:
"My grandfather was credited with the discovery of pus, but I don't know how anyone could have missed it"
A book that is the defining document of western civilization. The book of books in the West, which used to be called Christendom. Incidentally, as Barbara Tuchman pointed out, was warf and woof to the English settlers of New England, so much so that they adopted the ancient Hebrews as their ancestors rather than the ancient Angles and Saxons. Adair's History of the American Indians even sought to find the origin of the Indian languages in Hebrew. We know that many were convinced that they were remnants of the "Lost Tribes of Israel. " This is but one indication of how much the Bible was in the minds of the early Americans.
Not evolution at work but human intervention, which is hardly accidental.
I didn't bring up that point whatever. My second sentence is: "There were rare pre-historic viral infections in our common ancestor that have left remnants in the DNA of primates and humans."
Here's a great link from Icheumon.
The retroviral DNA segments in our DNA is proof that humans and primates are descended from a single common ancestor. Not just an ancestor species, but a common *individual* creature that got a virus one day and passed it down to all of us.
You can ignore the DNA evidence. The OJ jury did.
Variation and selection are the same physical process, whether the selection is natural or otherwise.
Notwithstanding the phraseology in your post, it's still - a book.
Just visualize him as Igor crouched over a keyboard drooling and mumbling "I just need a brain" over and over.
Buggman: I don't have to come up with a mechanism to explain an unproven process.
So you don't want to come up with the species limitation process that creationists believe exists, which limits micro evolution from becomming macro evolution? Fine. Science doesn't believe there is such a thing anyway.
That's why science accepts evolution.
Nicely said. Now send one to Gilder's cretins at The American Spectator.
hmmm. The only person that uses "fact" in the article is the good ol' Flickinger. Do I detect a little dishonesty in the creos AGAIN!
The Dummies Guide to ID (complete text) "Life is complicated and since we close our eyes to science something called ID must have created it."
Sheesh, guy. You want me to take them all on myself?
I used to subscribe to the Spectator. I stopped after they ran the first Tom Bethell anti-evolution column.
Check out Purrington's webpage, BTW. Lots of good stuff in the 'noodly appendage' style.
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.