Posted on 06/17/2003 7:05:07 PM PDT by Pharmboy
On the other hand, sickle-cell anemia is worse than you may realize. It cripples and kills people.
LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.
O...M...G... <gracie voice>Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too, in which case their color is irrelevant!</gracie voice> Um, or are you saying that peppered moths were predated upon by humans???
Either way: Oh ... mah ... GAWD!!!
This is science, and this is precisely why he was so brilliant. Next time you need a biologic advance to save your life, refuse it--if you dare.
Best,
PB
They never claimed speciation, it was MICROEVOLUTION!!
Whatever they claimed it was a lie and a fraud. There was no mutation, at most there was a change in the amount of spotted moths over white moths - but we can't be sure because the so called 'scientist' who spent years following the moth was a fraud. This is not speciation, not micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, not evolution at all. It is nothing except an example of the desperation of evolutionists in finding any living proof for their theory.
Hey thug - if you disagree with me, direct your comments at me. If you have nothing but insults as you do here, keep your comments to yourself.
I have proof that the fraud evolved, over many generations, into a little tiny white lie.
Hey thug, why don't you refute what was said. It is not mindless. It is a list of examples that show evolution to be complete garbage. Insulting the poster does not refute what was said.
LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
Shame on you Jenny. The reason that he had to paste them to the side of trees is that they do not rest on the side of trees - as I said. His statement was that they rested on the side of trees and that was when they were picked off by birds. The man was a liar and a fraud and it is an example of the shamefullness and dishonesty of evolution that they still try to use this fraud as an example of evolution.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.-me-
O...M...G... Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too,
No Jenny, you know exactly what I am speaking of. Mixed in with the leaves and branches they are hard to spot by birds.
The desperation of evolutionists in defending this fraud which in no way proves anything regarding evolution shows the desperation of evolution giving evidence of its theory.
This is science, and this is precisely why he was so brilliant.
In particular, the surfacing of such snippets is Creationist Quote Science. Darwin stated his theory as precisely as possible. He anticipated every objection which he could himself imagine. Thus, his text is replete with rhetorical questions, counter-proposals, qualifiers, and conditions. Any of these out of context looks like agonizing self-doubt.
Of course, given that Darwin was merely trying to be understood precisely, the quoter has to be willing to be dishonest in trying to insure that Darwin is misunderstood. Such willingness occurs in abundance amid the community of creationist writers.
Does your Mommy know that you talk this way, little boy?
Gore, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise () and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.
Nearly everywhere these mice are sandy-colored, well camouflaged as they scurry across beige-colored outcrops. But in some areas, ancient lava flows have left behind swaths of blackened rock. There the same species of rock pocket mouse has only dark coats, having evolved an entirely distinct and, for their surroundings, equally well-disguised pelage.
If, as the excerpt above says, it is the same species, then this is no more of a big deal than guernsies and holsteins as far as I can tell.
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.