Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years

UC Berkeley News Center ^ | 27 October 2005 | Robert Sanders

[mlc9852]

I have expressed my opinions numerous times regarding this case. I really am running out of new things to say about it. But again, the SC will likely be the final arbiter of this subject.

[mlc9852]

So all who believe the Bible are insane? Guess you may as well lock me up now.

[b_sharp]

If your notion of evolution was correct, what should we expect to see the frog evolve to?

[b_sharp]

You well did did you not no?

[flevit]

I have no idea, but until it is similarly demonstrated why shouldn't there be at least some skepticism.

why is more scientific to assume that it is limitless than to only accept what has been demostrated?

[savedbygrace]

Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I referred to the ARTICLE, and asked for a link to further information.

Plus, unless the researchers are a million years old and older, of course it's based on assumptions. But the ARTICLE doesn't contain any of that information, so we cannot draw conclusions from it.

Your contention that peer review in this field is going to destroy assumptions is silly and reckless.

[mlc9852]

Well, let's see. Humans evolved from apes or ape-like creatures so I would expect a frog to at least evolve into something more, well, grand. But in a few million more years, it might.

[Theophilus]

I'd take that personally except for the fact that the only girl I've ever cared about, asked me out first, and has given me 7 children. I hope you have a mate at least 1/10th as lovely as she is, all 115lbs of fiery redhead, but somehow I doubt it. If you and I could part ways as a species, I'm sure we'd do it, but God knows best.

[Junior]

No. That's not what I said, and you know it. I said "a particular interpretation of Scripture." You're trolling for a flame war because I know you're not stupid enough to equate "believe a particular interpretation of Scripture" with "believe the Bible." The difference between the two statements would be obvious to a learning-impaired 3rd grader.

[Junior]

Assume what is limitless?

[b_sharp]

"so speciation can be demonstrated, now on to the genus level..any similar example?

Why do creationists demand a smooth incremental cumulative fossil record and a large jump saltation style change in extant species?

[mlc9852]

How dare you make fun of learning-impaired third graders!

[Dimensio]

Wrong, this has all culminated in an acceleration of biologian's rabid voyeristic speculation

Let's see. Rabid FReepers have accused people who accept evolution of being liberals, atheists, Christ/God-haters, Communists, Nazis, racists and now voyeurs?

[Alouette]

I always suspected the French are a different species.

[Junior]

What assumptions is it based upon? Be specific, and I can guarrantee what you list will not be "assumptions" but well-tested science.

Otherwise, you could claim that the workings of your computer are all based upon assumptions, couldn't you?

[Junior]

Considering humans are nothing more than a type of ape (name one feature an ape has that humans don't, or vice versa), one can figure a frog will speciate into another frog.

[highball]

Why do creationists demand a smooth incremental cumulative fossil record and a large jump saltation style change in extant species?

Because it's not really about evidence at all.

[Junior]

I didn't. I gave them credit for differentiating between two separate statements.

[mlc9852]

Apes can't talk or write or sing or draw or build things or drive a car or a bunch of other things.

[highball]

I have expressed my opinions numerous times regarding this case. I really am running out of new things to say about it.

So you have no problem discussing the case, except when your boys get caught in a series of lies, and then you hide behind "I haven't read the complete transcripts?"

Disappointing.