Hmmmm? Thoughts?
To: Sabertooth
Ping!
To: realpatriot71
Image: Matthew Ronshaugen/UCSD |
To: realpatriot71
I wonder if them
Hox genes are pronounced as below?
To: realpatriot71
So, what they're trying to say is: a fly is a shrimp is a goat is a human - just switch the right Hox (hoax?) genes.
Yeah, right!
To: realpatriot71
Did this not occur in Thalidomide children?
8 posted on
02/07/2002 9:21:01 AM PST by
ijcr
To: realpatriot71
Whew! Now that that's been figured out, explain the origin of symbiotic relationships?
To: realpatriot71
Let us assume for a moment that macroevolution does exist. Let us also assume for a moment that the big bang theory is true. Hold on there you creationists, don't click the "post reply" button just yet. Prior to the big bang, there must have been something to go BANG, and there must have been some mighty force to ignite that something that went bang. Let us also assume that the creator of that something and the ignitor of that something was a force that some have come to know as a GOD. This creative power (a GOD in this example) could have devised a scheme that we refer to as macroevolution, as the mechanism that leads to the human. The point of evolution where the human emerged could have well been preordained. This still would be creation would it not?
To: realpatriot71
Family portrait of my brine shrimp.
To: realpatriot71
If this is acceptable, it would seem that over millions of years there would have been more numerous and wider varying mutants.
33 posted on
02/07/2002 10:13:38 AM PST by
cynicom
To: crevo_list
Bump.
54 posted on
02/07/2002 12:58:59 PM PST by
Junior
To: *Evolution
To: realpatriot71
I wonder what Michael Behe would say about this?
To: realpatriot71
69 posted on
02/08/2002 10:04:09 AM PST by
Junior
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson