Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Of course not. I don't stand for liars, so you run away from me like a coward.
Which means you have some idea of the assumptions being made, or you wouldn't characterize the research as being "based on assumptions." That thought would never cross the mind of anyone who understood science, and is typically a creationist talking point.
So, either you have an idea of the assumptions you claim have been made, or you are just assuming that's how science works (in which case you would be wrong).
Um - no, it isn't. If that's what you really think, no wonder that you're a creationist.
The first time mlc9852 said that he (or she) was not replying to me, it was stated as though he (or she) had initially said it sometime in the past. Except that I checked and he (or she) hadn't. So he (or she) was lying then and now.
You wish
Because of geographic isolation that began between 1 and 2 million years ago with the retreat of rainforest to higher elevations, two separate frog lineages developed in the northern and southern parts of the species' coastal range - only to be reconnected less than 8,000 years ago as the climate got wetter and warmer and the rainforest expanded.
Hoskin and his colleagues found that the northern and southern calls of the male frog, which are what females pay attention to in the mating game, had become different from each other.
We don't know that they were all originally the same before the communities were divided. We don't know what the calls of the male frog sounded like before they were divided.
there may have been selection pressure to evolve a mating strategy...; This appears to have occurred in the contact region...
Speculation. Why is this kind of stuff given such high credibility by evolutionists? Can it be because it aligns with what they already believe?
I've been told that she's a she, if it makes any difference.
But I love how she keeps responding to you saying that she's not responding to you!
Come now - anyone who supports this school board ought to be very careful before they call another person a liar.
That doesn't answer the question. Is it a sign of high intelligence for a human child to, on her own, figure out that a stick will help her avoid the deep spots in the stream? Yes or no?
"And writing goes back much farther than a few hundred years.
In our culture yes. However many cultures did not develop writing as a method of storage until much later. An example is the northern plains aboriginals who passed on stories verbally and used other methods of communication than writing. Does that make them less than human?
"Look, if you want to be an ape, that's fine. I prefer to be a human.
You are an ape and a human, as am I.
No. Seriously. In what way were they "unable to mate with either of the original frog populations"?
You see, this is how you're incorrect. The study of evolutionary theory has practical application not only in the medical sciences and biology, but fields beyond biology as well. For example, an important aspect of modern oil exploration is micropaleontology, the study of the microscopic remains of bacteria, diatoms, pollens, and protists. Micropaleontology is by far the largest field of paleontology, and has broad application in envrionmental engineering and mineral exploration. So, if you drive a car, or use electricity from coal-fired power plants, then evolution has had an impact on your life.
When I’m calling you-ou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ou
Will you answer true-ou-ou-ou-ou-ou-ou
Of course I think evolution posits common descent. Are you deliberately being obtuse or can you not help yourself?
If you have no way of knowing how old the earth is, how do you know it's older than 6000 years?
So you were there?
(But I see the real creos beat me to it, and with a straight face at that. How easy it is to do "the REAL science!")
I love your head-in-the-sand mentality. Evolution affects you whether you like it or not. And you may be singing another tune if a strain of avian influenza evolves and wipes out your family.
And evidence is all in the interpretation, isn't it?
No. Evidence is evidence. Facts are facts. And you have neither on your side.
Don't you think you're overly simplifying things here? There are a variety of frog species. Do you really consider all of them to be the same?
False dichotomy.
You are a human, and an ape.
A relatively hairless, clever, tool-using ape. But an ape, nonetheless.
So those Yankee accents drove those little trollops wild ... in Australia north is north & south is south ... but north is actually closer to the equator ... so those southern gentlemen frogs are Yankees (by our standards) ... get my drift? Oh, never mind ...
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.