The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

[gore3000]

So what the Confusiornis has to do with Bats is not only beyond my Ken,

Of course there is a relationship between Vade's use of Confusiornis as an example for bat evolution. The answer is in the name of the bird - to create confusion. there is no way that a bat can in any way be compared to it or have descended from it, but the point here is to create confusion and just to say something which will make it sound like he has refuted your example. The bat is unexplainable by evolution for the many reasons you stated as well as for some additional ones shown in Amazing Creatures .

[gore3000]

In the Darwinian sense, by exacerbating the Dependency-Support Ratio among Southern Italians (who, in terms of work-energy, need additional Offspring and simply cannot afford elderly indigents), this is not a "beneficial mutation" at all -- you are accelerating their Extinction.

It interesting that jennyp attacks you for showing that according to evolutionary theory this is not a beneficial mutation! You have shown quite well that as far as the values placed on life by the theory of evolution, this is not a good mutation. It is absolutely hilarious for jennyp to oppose your statement by reminding you of Christian values!

[gore3000]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Funny that evolutionists who claim the above almost as their Bible, can never give specific facts on these threads supporting evolution. In fact, they can not give anything better as evidence for their theory than an article, written by a nobody and refuted both in A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' as well as here on FR so well that jennyp gave up on posting them all.

There is also tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution which the evolutionists cannot refute.

[donh]

.Darwin was cudgled by his friends into publishing before he really intended to.

The implication that Darwin's book was a rush job is totally ridiculous

No such implication exists, and my statement is accurate as it stands.

[donh]

time to wake up and smell the encyclopeiacly

What's your point? Nothing in the source you've cited contradicts my suggestion that Darwin was urged to get a manuscript to press by his friends, out of concern that his deserved scientific credit be lost.

And, by the way, even if you had a point, it's not a point that particularly aids the creationist argument. The original contention in this piece of the thread was that Darwin made the whole thing up out of whole cloth. I was pointing out that what Darwin proposed was in the scientific atmosphere already, waiting for someone to formulate it.

You and Gore3000 are supporting my point, most particularly, with this cite you've offered. Thanks for the help, guys.

[ALS]

Darwin was a plagiarist and waited 20 years to publish.

You need to get your facts straight. Your incessant need to validate darwood, finds you ignoring history.

[donh]

Darwin was a plagiarist and waited 20 years to publish.

You need to get your facts straight. Your incessant need to validate darwood, finds you ignoring history.

You need to figure out what your own argument is. Your incessant need to repeat yourself endlessly finds you ignoring the rudiments of argumentation--such as having one for instance.

Please cite the documents published previous to Darwin's which "Origin of Species" duplicates to such an extent as to legally qualify as plagarism.

[ALS]

"You need to figure out what your own argument is. Your incessant need to repeat yourself endlessly finds you ignoring the rudiments of argumentation--such as having one for instance."

Sounds like you are talking to the evos.

or projecting again...

[I got the rope]

I am here for you my brother. Let the beatings begin!

[ALS]

ya'll are kinky

[donh]

In your haste to provide another response empty of content or meaning, you have inadvertently failed to answer my request concerning your claim about plageriasm.

Please cite, in the just-supplied web reference to which you are apparently referring, or elsewhere, your evidence that Darwin committed plagarism in any of his works.

[Quas primas]

There is a huge chasm between adaptation for survival and evolution of a breed/species.....it all depends on the environment.

The peppered Moth fraud was discounted, even by die hard evolutionists, many moons ago.

[ALS]

In YOUR haste to not read all the times I've posted this, you've failed to get off your lazy and go look for yourself(evo-typical).

let's hope you can read, at least

[Outer Limits]

A bunch of micros, make a macro, therefore Microevolution is very important for us to understand.

Sorry , a bunch of micros producing a macro has never been observed in the fossil record or anywhere else.Variation within the species suggests an intelligent designer.

What you really mean is, Microevolution is very important for us to "believe" because without it, Darwin looks like the fool that he really was.

[ALS]

HAHAHAHA!

bingo

[Aric2000]

Excuse me? Microevolution happens ALL the time, it has been seen, it has been witnessed, and there are LOADS of them in the fossil record.

They are called TRANSITIONAL fossils, and PLENTY of them exist to be able to say what I said.

So, sorry Charlie, that was a VERY sad attempt.

Care to try again?

[ALS]

loads bump

[Pharmboy]

That was my point...see my remarks about the moth issue.

[donh]

let's hope you can read, at least

You hoped no one would read this, since this is yet another example of your dishonest use of voluminous cites which do not support your point. Journalists get fired, and students get expelled for such behaviour, but that doesn't deter you, does it?

Were this not a total bluff, you would be able to embarass me by pointing out where in this long-winded cite, lies the evidence that Darwin committed plagarism.

Of course, you cannot, so you do not.

[ALS]

Your canned tripe is the usual evo response. God Himself could write a book and you would call that the same.
ooops! He did, and you do.

Darwin is a plagiarist.
live with it, like all the rest of us do.