"VoiceOfReason" <papa_fox at (no spam) cybertown.com> skrev i melding
news:f751ddf8-7fa6-4c75-8ffb-748b7d89ed69 at (no spam) k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Joseki wrote:
On Nov 12, 5:10 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_... at (no spam) cybertown.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:54 am, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 10:24 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_... at (no spam) cybertown.com> wrote:
On Nov 12, 8:51 am, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 10, 12:02 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_... at (no spam) cybertown.com
wrote:
Joseki wrote:
On Nov 9, 6:15 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_... at (no spam) cybertown.com
wrote:
IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:54 am, Joseki <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
http://kalkion.com/news/speed-limit-evolution/693
Even before Macro Evolution can be considered,
Abiogenesis > > > > > > > > has to be
credible.
Wrong. Evolution is directly observable, whether or not
we > > > > > > > have the
slightest clue about the mechanism behind abiogenesis.
without abiogenesis, there is no evolution.
Non sequitur. We've known for hundreds of years that the
moon > > > > > circles
the earth, even though we don't know for certain how the
moon > > > > > was
originally formed.
Fact.
We know that gravity exists, although physicists
still puzzle over the mechanism.
Fact.
It can not demonstrated.
Evolution is observed, just as the moon's orbit around the
earth > > > > > is
observed.
yeah, we tweak definitions here and there. And young child will
evolved into an adult.
You don't understand evolution.
Actually I do. You do not. Now if you were referring to biological
evolution, that would be change in the genetic material of a
population of organisms from one generation to the next; Minute
changes. It is predicted the emergence of a new species over time.
This has not been observed depending on the scientist you talk to.
Even the definitions of the term species in contradictory.
Now you were saying?
Like I said, you don't understand evolution. Speciation has been
directly observed, despite creationist disinformation to the contrary.
Observed Instances of
Speciation:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation
Events:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Refutation of creationist claim that "No new species have been
observed":http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Article on Speciation, including examples and
references:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
Learn to read before you quote. More so T.O un-peered review Faq's.
Irony lives.
If you had bothered to actually READ them, you would have seen that
those FAQs have references to dozens of articles from peer-reviewed
journals. Not only that, but many of the posters in T.O over the
years are working scientists who have also reviewed them for accuracy.
Those same faq's would tell you; there are many definitions of what
kind of unit a species is or should be. A common definition is that of
a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile
offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with
which interbreeding does not normally happen. Other definitions may
focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further
subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement
on the criteria to be used.
As I said, it seems I know about evolution than you do.
Obviously not, since you insisted that evolution cannot exist without
knowing the mechanism for abiogenesis. That's a tired old creationist
strawman.
Get back to me
when there is a definitive and conclusive definition of what a species
is.
Squirm, whimper and shift the goalposts all you want, but the fact
remains that speciation is observed both in the lab and in the wild.
Anybody can read those FAQs to see that is the case. Your denial
accomplishes nothing.
-- An organisms DNA has never changed into another bundle of DNA.Ever.
So you're dreaming.
