Skip to comments.Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years
Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Wrong, this has all culminated in an acceleration of biologian's rabid voyeristic speculation about which frogs were where and screwing who for the past 8,000 unobserved years.
So, if I am reading this correctly:
The Southern Lady frogs didn't like the Northern Carpetbagger Yankee frogs, and would only accept Southern Gentlemen frogs that could belt out a good, long, rebel yell as a potential mate, thereby creating a new species in isolation.
The possibilities for jokes here are endless...
Did you happen to get Adam's autograph back when you met him several thousand years ago?
Why not just clarify what brand of creationism you believe in:
A) Flat Earth Creationism
B) Geocentric Creationism
C) Young-Earth Creationism
D) Old-Earth Creationism
E) Gap Creationism
F) Day-Age Creationism
G) Progressive Creationism
H) Intelligent Design Creationism
I) Evolutionary Creationism
All detailed here . In all fairness, we should know how much good science you're sweeping under the rug before being critical.
no its not. Nobody argues against adaptation. But where did that ability to adapt come from? The frog cam from an egg of a frog which came from...etc. becomes a chicken and egg argument.
That is where evolutionist branch of to say that that that frog came from a fish egg, which came from a sponge which cam from bacteria. And creationists say the frog was designed by God and all frogs have multiplied according to their kind, in a vast array of diversity with the ability to adapt to its changing environment.
So far I have not seen compelling evidence of the type of 'family tree' evolution from single cells up to mammals etc. But all around I see compelling evidence of a God.
Look out! Your strawman is on fire!
I believe I am a Number 5.
I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I have no idea when he did this but I would imagine it was over 6,000 years ago. And I'm not impressed with your little list.
I guess the famale frog's pickiness explains why Kermit is dating a pig, and the world has been blessed with Figs and Prog(rammer)s.
Trying to impress you is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying to figure out how much of the Bible you take literally (choice A is the only one that allows one to take the entire Bible literally) and how much science you're willing to throw out the window to make your given choice mesh with reality.
The evidence continues to build and yet you ignore it. Maybe we should call this "ostrich syndrome."
Only partially compatible. You might want to reread the article.
I don't need to explain my religious beliefs to you. And I really don't care about yours. What I believe makes no difference to whether or not ID will be taught in Penn. I don't live there so I don't care. I just worry about what is taught in local schools here.
The evidence is - what? A frog turned into a frog? Wow! Darwin WAS right, wasn't he? Nice try.
a YEC, should be thrilled at this type of science/ hyper-evolution, variations with in "kinds" (below family level maybe below genus), have a far more limited time adapt and deversify with a postule of a global flood in recent history...
I can add it to the archive, too.
Then you don't know what evolution means. Perhaps you should find out before you go expounding on the subject.
It's derived from Wikipedia, but it's been edited, and hopefully, vetted. At least it won't be extended or modified without being edited by a responsible party.
ouch horrible and grammer and typo's...ohwell
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.