Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
No joke. Few Christians had any problem with Darwin until certain populist politicians, and later Internet shysters, decided they needed something new to grandstand about.
So, you are claiming that acting haughtily and cutting people down with disparaging remarks is something that you were prompted to do by the Holy Spirit?
Or penecillin and anti-biotics, the greatest achievements of the 20th century. Do we know the names of those who get credit for this? I don't, but I know the name of Darwin, the founder of the Religion of Evolution.
HEY! No pictures of Tikrit Teddy here!
Skeletons have been unearthed which are clearly those of some variety of whale, yet they have a vestigial pelvis that contemporary whales do not. Animals change over time. We can directly observe this in drug-resistant bacteria.
Bring it down from the mountain, prophet! Sprinkle some of that holy water!
If you can't produce a new fruit fly under ideal conditions after hundreds of years of geographical isolation, laboratory selection out for type, tens of thousands of opportunities for mutation...and then this last attempt by the U of Chicago scientist to delve into the dna with super-microsurgery...if you can't manage one little fly, who's ignorant?
Right! A crocodile adapts to live in salt water, but it is still a crocodile, it does not "speciate".
Eh, ya got a little self righteousness in my eye there, buddy. :P
*wipe wipe*
The idea that animals change over time doesn't invalidate the fact that we have dominion over the earth. Non sequitur?
Your point is very damning. Such as life just happened, man with all is arrogance and intelligence cannot make life "just happen" in the laboratory on purpose. Man cannot make evolution just happen. okay, there's that whole dairy cow thing, and that wolf and dog thing but they did not "speciate" when the were designer bred, wolves and dogs are the same species.
No, that's my point. It's impossible to speculate without more information. To give an example, if the earth in a million years has giant pools of mercury rather than oceans of water, life, if any survives, would look different than it does now. It would be reasonable under this scenario, for example, to speculate that organisms that don't require water would be found. (What the physical form of these organisms would be is difficult to determine.) It would be reasonable to speculate that any organisms that would live in the mercury oceans would have body shapes that are more streamlined than fish and aquatic mammal are currently. Prediction is a tricky thing, however. We currently can't predict the weather with any degree of accuracy more than a day or two ahead of time. That doesn't mean we don't understand the mechanisms of weather, however. You could be expected to reasonably speculate about your great, great, great, great grandchildrens' hair color, but you would probably be wrong.
You are fast, got it in on the 4th post.
If animals, or rather the genes of families of animals did not change over time, there would be no drug resistant strains of disease. Do you deny that drug resistant strains of bacteria exist?
Sheep were breed in ancient times for twinning, and now most sheep twin if the shepherd knows what he's doing. Domestic sheep must be shorn regularly, because they have been bred to the point that they cannot naturally shed their fleeces--and will die from suffocation after years of being unshorn. All still--the sheep.
We see the chihuahua, and the Great Dane. All dogs.
Speciation is the question here--not that animals change.
Argument by name calling
"The mind *boggles* at the ability of the anti-creationists to MISS THE POINT so badly. "-Ichneumon
Finally, We anti-evolutionists agree with you 100%!!!!
We can prove you wrong quite easily, actually.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your smugness, since you seem so pleased with it.
But, wouldn't you think, since we've been playing with fruit flies for about three hundred years...
Okay, I'll bite -- exactly who do you hallucinate has been "playing with fruit flies for about three hundred years?
in Beijing, Detroit, Florence, Terra Fuego...and generations could well be in the hundreds of thousands.
Fruit flies don't have a life cycle *that* fast, m'dear... One day in the egg, seven days as a larva, six days pupating. Minimum generation time is thus about two weeks. And although people first dabbled in fruit fly experiments in the early 1900's, Drosophila didn't really take off as a test subject until after the discovery of DNA in the 1950's.
Nor was "creating a new species" the goal of these experiments, but even if it had been, that means that there have only been around 1000 fruit fly generations, total, under experimental conditions. That's a considerable amount, but hardly enough to allow the evolution of fruit flies into, say, non-flies, as you so ridiculously demand to be shown.
Do you likewise foolishly insist that geologists show you a brand new mountain range developed from flat land via plate tectonics in the past 100 years?
Wouldn't you think we'd at least get a New Fly, if the theory has anything to it at all?
Oh, you mean like this?
Hint: Ordinarily, fruit flies have only *two* wings...
It'd sure bolster your religion and its dogma--
And "it'd sure bolster" your credibility if you learned why science is not a "religion" and does not rely upon "dogma", it relies upon evidence and experimental results.
which may be why so many scientists claim to have Given Life when they clearly have not.
What *are* you babbling about here?
I know you think any anti-evolution argument is bearing false witness, but it is not.
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.