Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
I’m a spear fisherman.
LOL!
You guys are like Mohemmed....
Your followers point out you’re sleeping with a 9 year old and then suddenly you get a revelation from God .. “Oh.. yeah.. that’s supposed to happen. It is now ok to sleep with 9 year olds”
Not surprising at all, actually.
Darwinian evolution is the unassailable super theory. There is no falsifiability. Any troubles are quickly assimilated, as though they had been part of the theory all along.
The only thing that Darwin predicted is that offspring vary in minor, almost undetectable ways, from their parents, and that, as a result of variation, some will be more successful than others at reproducing.
No biologist has ever declared that successful body types will change just for the sake of change. Alligators haven't changed much, and many insects have stable body types.
==Evolution doesn’t absolutely guarantee the success of one species in any niche.
Creation doesn’t absolutely guarantee the success of one species in any niche either.
==Darwinian evolution is the unassailable super theory. There is no falsifiability. Any troubles are quickly assimilated, as though they had been part of the theory all along.
I’m starting to think that Darwinian evolutionists aren’t necessarily Darwinians...they’re EVOLUTIONISTS come hell or high water.
Darwinian evolution is the unassailable super theory. There is no falsifiability.
__________
Find a homo sapien in the gut of an allosaurus, and voila! Falsified.
Next!
==The only thing that Darwin predicted is that offspring vary in minor, almost undetectable ways, from their parents, and that, as a result of variation, some will be more successful than others at reproducing.
So are you saying that Eldredge and Tattersall did not properly understand Darwin’s predictions?
==No biologist has ever declared that successful body types will change just for the sake of change.
I don’t know what you mean “for the sake of change” (it sounds like you are implying directed mutation, which I know you are not). Other than that, all Darwinian evolutionists say precisely that. Except you left out the part where random changes that disadvantage an organism are weeded out by natural selection.
The title of this thread is not the title of the article, and the material added in parentheses flatly contradicts the content of the article.
It just makes FR look like it is run by people who can’t read.
Here’s the link to the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726142013.htm
How exactly did I get the title wrong???
But it also makes this forum a lot more fun than Darwin Central where they stay too serious all the time.
If memory serves, this is the second time you have gone running to the moderators over absolutely nothing. Ever hear of the boy who cried wolf?
Not sure impawards.com was around during Darwin’s time for him to evaluate and study.
Look at the title again. You obviously don't know wrong from right. The article proves that Darwin is right again!!!
When I clicked the link “Darwin Wrong Again” was nowhere to be found.
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.