Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on

Times Online | 2003-02-20 | Anthony Browne, Environment Editor

[aculeus]

The wall -- defense (( resistance )) to love // TRUTH -- me === is futile !

The madder they make me -- the harder I THINK // smile (( laugh )) ==== my ideal -- goal !

oing - o + P = Bliss!

[f.Christian]

Didn't you have a change of mind // heart about Elian - - -

that is when my writing started to go crazy (( broken ))!

Do you understand your beliefs - - -

can you express // explain them ? ? ?

[Ichneumon]

If species are dying out at an alarming rate (which was as true 200 years ago as it is now) and new ones take thousands of years, is this not evidence that things are devolving?

No, it most certainly is not. Extinction is as much a part of evolution as is the rise of new species.

Be sure you understand the field before you try to pontificate upon it.

[laredo44]

I think the problem is that it makes too much sense. Birds (and fish) could easily all be the same kind of creature, just like dogs are.

You seem a little short on rigor here. Are all birds the same species or not? Humans and chimps share 98% or so identical DNA. Are they the same species? If the California Condor and the Emporer Penguin share less than 98% of their DNA are they different species?

[walkingdead]

"LOSING something is not evidence for evolution. Evolution requires GAINING something."

Are you serious?!?! Making something more effecient is what evolution is all about. Are you really saying that losing something cannot make you more effecient? If so, you must be on a computer thats taking up most of your house.....

[rwfromkansas]

yawn

[Jhoffa_]

Do you understand your beliefs - - - can you express // explain them ? ? ?

Perfectly.. (in text) I do all the time here, as a matter of fact.

[anka]

is it 'Old Toby' weed?

[f.Christian]

I wish evolutionists would find and smoke a weed that would cure their insanity !

[Jimmyclyde]

Just for the record, I was sitting by the train station and saw a weed......

We came from a weed, we did, we did!!!!

silly, silly, silly....

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The wall -- defense (( resistance )) to love // TRUTH -- me === is futile !

The madder they make me -- the harder I THINK // smile (( laugh )) ==== my ideal -- goal !

I'm waiting for f.Christian's posts to evolve into sentences...

[walkingdead]

"I wish evolutionists would find and smoke a weed that would cure their insanity !"

So hard sought undeniable scientific facts are insanity. But the thought of one man putting every monkey, homo, commie, and weed on this earth is realistic?!

[Ichneumon]

Come see me when it establishes its own new phylum.

Since new phyla have arisen on Earth only about 35 times in several billion years, your insistence that you won't accept anything else as evidence until you can see a new phylum arise in your lifetime is either incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous. Which is it, so I'll know how better to address your posts in the future?

Then we are talking evolution.

Is it actually your contention that *only* the rise of a new phylum would be "evolution"? I repeat the question I asked you in the first part of this post.

No, once again you confuse the matter by postulating a difference where there is no difference. Large-scale evolution is just small-scale evolution accumulated over time until the differences combine to change enough of the species that people go, "wow, that's pretty different".

There is absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", except to the creationists who are forced to admit the existence of evolution but want to claim that it can "only" happen in small amounts -- without ever explaining what, exactly, they think would halt the accumulation of changes before they add up to large changes.

Before you start waving your hands, remember that there are fossil sequences which, when arranged chronologically, clearly map out small stepwise changes which, when comparing the final part of the sequence with the first part, add up to the rise of whole new groups of animals which did not previously exist.

[anka]

you must have a lot of time on your hands... ;-)

[Ichneumon]

So now hybrids are evolution in action?

When they make new species which are reproductively isolated from other species, yes.

What about random mutation and natural selection?

Those are at work too.

[anka]

and we all hope they share a toke with you ;-)

[Jhoffa_]

I wish evolutionists would find and smoke a weed that would cure their insanity !

I don't understand it either..

Further, if you think about it.

If there's no God, then there's no morality.

There is no guide for what's "moral" "right" or "good"

The Rapist simply has "different views" than the non-rapist and so on..

Because, who can tell the rapist with authority that he is wrong? Who has a definitive answer on what "wrong" is?

At that point, "right" "wrong" "moral" and "immoral" are nothing but ideas put forth by men.. and they can be summarily rejected as such.

And will be. I know I have no respect for the thought's put forth by other men.. It must come from God before I will listen.

Is it any wonder we are in such dire straights?

[Ichneumon]

I suppose this is the 110,000th proof of evolution.

No, actually, the number of evidences for evolution is far greater than that, but yes, this is yet another on the pile.

What will it be tomorrow?

Hard to predict in advance what form it will take, but if the past is any indication, then tomorrow will bring many more types of evidence for evolution.

How many can the creationists claim?

[walkingdead]

"If there's no God, then there's no morality."

You are the one who is moral, God doesn't make you a moral man, nor does reading his teachings.

"There is no guide for what's "moral" "right" or "good""

Which is exactly why the bible was created, as a SOCIAL CONTROL. Man had to make boundaries, but ones that would stick. Now, what better way to get people to be "moral" than to scare them with the prospect of rotting in a enternal firey hell?

[Con X-Poser]

"LOSING something is not evidence for evolution. Evolution requires GAINING something."

<< Are you serious?!?! Making something more effecient is what evolution is all about. Are you really saying that losing something cannot make you more effecient? If so, you must be on a computer thats taking up most of your house..... >>

Micro-sizing is not losing anything, my computer has a lot more items than old room-sized ones had. They're just much smaller. But if I start removing parts, it will not evolve into "Deep Blue" and whip Kasparov in chess.

Actually, my computer was originally an old TI-30 calculator. I just kept taking it apart and shaking the parts together and it kept reassembling itself into more modern calculators, then one day a Tandy computer appeared, then the software for "Pong" developed on its own (after all, that's MUCH simpler than a cell), then a 486 evolved out of that, and now it's a P3 with DVD and 40X CD burner.

All of that is much more simple than a single living cell. If you can believe an amoeba developed into a human, I can believe a TI-30 developed into Deep Blue.