It depends on whether your legs have evolved to be long enough to reach the ground....
Looks like THIS fellow has figured out how to get them to TOUCH!!
Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
It means just what I said. Small changes don't get the job done. Large scale changes are required, chromosmal mutations et al. That's my opinion and I think you would agree with it if you gave it some thought rather than jump to defensive conclusions.
There is overwhelming evidcne that genetic change, or mutation if you will, accompanies change, but that's a small part of the story. We've only just mapped the human genome. We know little how it works. We know little what other biological structures or mechanisms may interact with the genome or what roles they may play in its change or mutation.
As for "overwhelming evidence" for natural selection, I'm unclear what you mean. Darwin theorized that random mutation would create many different versions of an organism who would compete against each other for resources until all but the best adapted to the environment have died out. Well there's just no evidence for that. If by "natural selection" you mean that life on Earth seems to have to ability to change to better adapt to its environment, well then yes, there is a great deal of evidence for that.
Knock it off with the gratuitous personal attacks.
Knowing you somewhat you're not joking..
I would engage this subject if I cared, I don't.. I don't care if some bones(and the storys invented to explain them) are real or fake.. If all the bones(fossils) are as reported I would still question them.. and the stories invented to explain them I take with a grain of salt.. I don't take as fact the "creationist" views of how life started and I take palentology (as a science) on about the same level of fact..
So there is nothing it this for me to gain.. except playing with you and Demensio.. which I did, and am now.. Your opinion is just an opinion.. they are like elbows you know..
I like to spit on my betters shoes.. Are you my better.?.
Signed;
Not buying palentology as other than a pseudo-science.. And am suspicious of any myth invented to explain how "feathers" came into being.. especially from "scales"
Seems pretty obvious. It was the Green River killer.
For sure
Lying...!... LoL..
People lie to themselves.. Especially after buying into bull sperm, like Socialism.. or Evolution.. And anything contrary to the script they view as disinformation.. or even a lie..
You seem to be an ideologue, I am too politically, but not on this subject.. Actually I pity palentological mental slaves.. But its a low grade pity.. I'm a bad man..
LoL... my how you go on...
"Losing DNA information is not a positive step."
Since when, if what is lost is junk?
You asked for an example of a positive mutation. I gave you one.
This mutation helps certain of the HIV virus beat drugs.
That's called evolution.
As to the evidence against Darwinian gradualism, you might read Gould, who developed the PunkEek theory because he candidly recognized there was no evidence in support of gradualism. When change occurs in organisms it occurs quickly and directly, without need for random mutation, many mutations of an organism and the good old "battle for survival of the fittest."
We know that change occurs, what is often referred to as the "fact" of evolution. What we don't yet know is the change agent. I think we are in for some interesting surprises in the future as we unravel the secrets of the genome and the other structures and mechanisms that work with it and on it.
Well, good night to you.
I guess the folks on THIS thread, who weren't on the OTHER thread would like to hear it.
DNA analysis --- consistent with evolution --- has proven that there is at least one shared common male ancestor --- and one shared female ancestor, for that matter.
Even I'D like to see this!
You just posted a detailed desciption of horse evolution from hyracotherium to equus as an intricate, branching tree with numerous local trends in response to situational pressures here, there, and then. That's a good argument, but not for what you were doing with it.
I've noticed that a lot, lately. You guys don't even look at the stuff you grab to throw at us. At any rate, you don't know what it means.
Ok, I'll bite. Just how many 'mutants' have humans 'created' that came about from -- response to situational pressures?
Yeah... sure...
[blush]
Which OUR country WILL have down the road a piece.
And it'll work Better than those OTHERS countries that have it!
(At least our controllers will tell us that.)
Oh?
Depends on the definition of 'force'.
Therefore, no Evo should be against 'birth defects'.
It's merely the big E trying to function and Man trying to put a STOP to him..........
or a LOT!
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.