Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought
The Kansas City Star ^ | November 18, 2006 | Eric Hand

Posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:27 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

ST. LOUIS - Evolution happens. But it can also stop and turn on a dime.

A new study of lizards in the Bahamas shows that the natural selection pressures that drive evolution can flip-flop faster than previously thought - even in months.

"Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."

The lizards and their changing leg lengths are yet another case of evolution occurring in real time. From finches that evolve longer beaks in a few years to bacteria that adapt to strange feeding regimens in days, evolution, as a science, has leapt out of musty museums and into the field.

Scientists say that, from a political perspective, the cases offer a vivid reminder of the continuous process that some people imagine proceeding only in fossilized fits and starts: First monkey, then man.

But for the scientists themselves, the cases show that evolutionary biology has, well, evolved into a predictive, experimental science like any other.

Losos had the perfect Petri dishes: 12 tiny islands in the Bahamas with small populations of insect-eating Anolis sagrei, six-inch long lizards that normally live on the ground but can adapt to life in trees.

On six of the islands, Losos introduced a predator, a large curly-tailed lizard that can gobble up the lizards. He theorized that at first, the fastest prey would survive as they ran for the trees. Natural selection would reward long legs. Then, as the little lizards adapted to life in trees, nimble twig maneuvers and shorter legs would be rewarded.

At the start of the experiment, the scientists, using dental floss nooses on the ends of 10-foot poles, caught all lizards and carefully measured their hind-limbs. After the first six months, their predictions held up. The average leg length of survivors was 2 percent longer than those that were killed. After a year, leg length was 3 percent shorter. The changes were small in absolute terms but statistically very large, said R. Brian Langerhans, a graduate student with Losos.

The study appeared Friday in the journal Science. Losos did the research while at Washington University, but left for Harvard University in June.

The lizard study echoes one of the classic cases of evolution-in-action: Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. For more than 30 years, Princeton University biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have measured changes in the finches' beaks. After extended droughts, small seeds became more scarce. In a few years, the finches evolved longer beaks to crack the larger, tough seeds that remained. Then as more plentiful times returned, the bird beaks got smaller again.

At Michigan State University, Richard Lenski is studying evolution in test tubes. For almost 20 years, he has reared 12 colonies of E. coli. They have divided more than 30,000 times - which, in terms of human generations, is longer than Homo sapiens has been around. Lenski has challenged the bacteria with strange feeding patterns - feeding them sugars, then starving them.

The colonies all adapted, quickly. But they used different genetic tricks to get there. Their DNA is now remarkably different: an example of parallel evolution.

It's difficult to know how an organism will adapt, and also how subtle environmental changes will kick evolution off in a striking new direction, said Ken Petron, a University of Cincinnati ecologist who worked with the Grants on their finches.

For example, on one trip to the Galapagos during a time of seed scarcity, the Grants expected to find the trend toward larger beaks. But a new, larger finch had colonized the island and was eating the larger seeds, Petron said. It was no longer an advantage for the smaller finches to grow larger beaks.

"It's very difficult to predict the outcome of evolution before it happens," he said.

But if biologists can get better at predicting evolution, it could have applications for areas in which humans are altering the environment and causing evolutionary pressures themselves, Langerhans said. Stanford University ecologist Stephen Palumbi has estimated a $50 billion "evolution bill" associated with the antibiotic and pesticide resistance that bacteria, weeds and insects have evolved in medicine and agriculture.

Had the experiment continued, Losos expected the lizard legs to get even shorter with successive generations. But two hurricanes in quick succession submerged the little islands. "All the living lizards were washed away. Bummer," Losos said.

Some eggs survived, however, and hatchling populations are growing. Losos plans to start the experiment over.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; naturalselection; religionisobsolete
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 951-992 next last
To: RunningWolf

It must be penis envy - for it IS a black dildo! ;^)


601 posted on 11/24/2006 11:38:06 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
In the future, when you attempt to insult someone, it would be good of you to ping them as a courtesy.

OXYMORON Alert!!!


602 posted on 11/24/2006 11:39:49 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: Radix
I'm watching George Carlin talk about "entropy" as I post this.

Why??

Is the Paint Drying channel not coming in clearly? ;^)

603 posted on 11/24/2006 11:42:30 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: All

Dang!

Did we all eat a bunch of bad turkey or WHAT???

604 posted on 11/24/2006 11:44:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

Comment #605 Removed by Moderator

WE is posting on his own, not as a representative of DC.
606 posted on 11/24/2006 5:33:11 PM PST by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Junior; DaveLoneRanger
For all intents and purposes (when your forum replaced DLR's avatar) how is dildo as opposed to penis any different?

This must be such a very fine distinction that only a highly honed and sophisticated mind like that of the darwin-central crowd can grasp /sarc>

You guys say that your intent is to educate. Well here is your chance to educate all us 'cretards'

Oh and BTW, there is no comparison to what your site did toward DLR and anything that has happened on the FR.

Wolf
607 posted on 11/24/2006 5:36:47 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

Comment #608 Removed by Moderator

To: RunningWolf
how is dildo as opposed to penis any different? This must be such a very fine distinction that only a highly honed and sophisticated mind like that of the darwin-central crowd can grasp
Nooooooo comment.
Oh and BTW, there is no comparison to what your site did toward DLR and anything that has happened on the FR.
Oh, I disagree entirely! In the eyes of the frevolutionists, they were being persecuted because Jim Robinson was nuking the rude members, and disagreeing with the rest. This caused them to run away howling and shrieking to their own forum, where they could exercise much more freedom to lick their imagined wounds and hurl insults at Jim. Lo and behold, in comes someone who disagrees with them. He doesn't immediately shake hands with those who have stabbed him in the back multiple times on FR, and therefore he is trolling for a fight, and is nuked basically for no other reason than because he disagreed. They'll try to say he wasn't playing by the rules, but that's all make-believe.

So in other words, they behaved exactly like they think Jim did. Except, it's justified when performed on the side of evolution. See?
609 posted on 11/24/2006 8:50:08 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("I am here to fight evil and exchange good-natured barbs." - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Yes I got it now DLR!

I guess thats the kind of distorted contorted inside out upside down sort of of logic it takes to by into the whole toe thing and the cult of Darwinism built on it.

Science it is not what the group is about, that is certain.

Regards,

Wolf
610 posted on 11/24/2006 9:06:42 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Interesting that the evos are given much more leeway here on FR about opposing points of view than IDers/creationists are over at DC. Seems like JR allows them to promote their point of view freely where creationists can't over there.

For example, they have a specific injunction against promoting ID/creationism where FR does not prohibit promoting evolution.

Witnessing is prohibited, yet FR doesn't mention not promoting atheism.

The prohibition of not promoting the agenda of the left is actually funny considering the support the ACLU enjoys from the evos.

The prohibition against spam regurgitation (dumping tracts into threads) does not have an equivalent here because there is no prohibition against someone posting *scientific* evidence in the form of research papers to support their belief about the correctness of evolution.

I find it amusing that they so freely admit that if you post anything that violates their restrictive posting guidelines, you are a goner, but whine when over here about how JR runs HIS site when some of them get the axe for violating HIS less restrictive posting guidelines.

They just want to control BOTH websites and are pretty peeved that they haven't accomplished that here yet.

611 posted on 11/24/2006 9:16:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: metmom
They just want to control BOTH websites and are pretty peeved that they haven't accomplished that here yet

Maybe they will enlist the ACLU for their tasks in that regards.

But it is more likely that the ACLU and perhaps Soros himself has enlisted them to their ends. What is it that Lenin said?? Oh yeh, the useful idiot thing.

Wolf
612 posted on 11/24/2006 9:25:38 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

Comment #613 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom

I guess that's where the Free of Free Republic comes in.


614 posted on 11/24/2006 9:31:31 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("I am here to fight evil and exchange good-natured barbs." - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Yadda yadda, we've been over all this before.

Your own RightWingProfessor has stated on the forum that the other creationists have stayed because they have been "remarkably restrained in the face of quite a bit of provocation." Yes, I must admit, when I'm told "The boys don't want to be you, and the girls don't want to f*** you, so go away" I'm not going to smile warmly upon it.

Otherwise, I challenge you to show me any time where I violated the rules.
615 posted on 11/24/2006 9:36:07 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("I am here to fight evil and exchange good-natured barbs." - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd; DaveLoneRanger

And here I thought only two year olds were so obsessed with potty talk.


616 posted on 11/24/2006 9:36:24 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I still hear ***crickets chirping***.
617 posted on 11/24/2006 9:41:22 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

Comment #618 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom

That's funny. I hear a sizzling noise.


619 posted on 11/24/2006 10:10:37 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger ("I am here to fight evil and exchange good-natured barbs." - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Like this?
620 posted on 11/24/2006 10:29:23 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Singed the hair off my knuckles....


621 posted on 11/24/2006 10:31:24 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: metmom

622 posted on 11/24/2006 10:47:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Suicide by Mod?


623 posted on 11/25/2006 3:03:43 AM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Elsie; LiteKeeper; Junior; RunningWolf; gobucks

Quotable quotes of supporters of evolution,

By Fred Hoyle,

“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers {enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc. } on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth.

“Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons {the evolutionary theoreticians} who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.

“They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations. . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of {the two laws of} thermodynamics”

Fred Hoyle “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527

 

Seems to me Fred who believed in evolution knew the mathematical impossibilities of evolution.

I mean if life could not start by chaotic random chance, why would a lizard give birth to a bird, or a fish to an air breathing land walking animal.

Oh well the erudite men and women of evolution have all kinds of quotes that contradict the theory of evolution. They see the evidence and realize it does not fit with their religious belief.

Puzzled and in a quandary they scratch their knowledge filled heads with their opposable thumb, then begin to scribble down beautiful quotes as above.

They are not willing to succumb to the fact that evolution {stellar, chemical, macro} does not exist. So they believing that science is self correcting {most of the time it is as long as it does not contradict evolution, or until the hoax has been made manifest to the unaware public} they spin a new variation of the fable to fit their religion.

624 posted on 11/25/2006 9:22:50 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Creationist
When even some of the most respected renowned people in the arenas of physics biology etc. can see the weakness and logical failures the theory is built upon, why are we bashed as ignorant uneducated 'cretards' because we see the same in the theory?

W.
625 posted on 11/25/2006 3:33:10 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Why???

Resistance is Futile!

You WILL be assimilated!


626 posted on 11/25/2006 8:31:16 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

Fred Hoyle believed in Panspermia, in other words, life came from space, he didn't like the fact that origins is unexplained in evolution, so he attacked it, because he believed that panspermia was the answer to the riddle.

Evolution itself, he had no problem with, he just did not believe that 4 billion years was enough, although he believed that 15 billion years was enough.

If you are going to quote someone, perhaps you ought to quote someone that will help your creationist argument. LOL


627 posted on 11/26/2006 12:01:54 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

I find it amusing that you don't understand his actual basis in making such a statement.

You think that his statement is actually about evolution, when in fact it is actually about time, and origins.

Please study up before you start spouting nonsense.

Sorry, never mind, I know that you won't actually study the subject, so why do I even bother to ask?


628 posted on 11/26/2006 12:04:27 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

Oh, and FYI, Sir Francis hoyle was a diehard Atheist. LOL

Watch who you are quoting, perhaps you should research a bit before spouting off such nonsense. LOL


629 posted on 11/26/2006 12:10:46 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Why did you have posts deleted on this thread and account suspended?
630 posted on 11/26/2006 1:24:00 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Look, get your amusement wherever you may. In a now deleted post you described what 'fun' could be, and no thanks keep it for yourself. In any event you do not speak for me, Hoyle, creationist nor anyone else but yourself, and you do that very poorly.

Wolf
631 posted on 11/26/2006 1:54:04 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

--Seems to me Fred who believed in evolution knew the mathematical impossibilities of evolution.--

I don't understand. I haven't researched 'Fred' but if he said it was mathematically impossible, how can you say he believed in evolution?


632 posted on 11/26/2006 8:43:48 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

Thank you. I believe you have answered the question I asked in 632.


633 posted on 11/26/2006 8:45:31 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

--When even some of the most respected renowned people in the arenas of physics biology etc. can see the weakness and logical failures the theory is built upon, why are we bashed as ignorant uneducated 'cretards' because we see the same in the theory?--

I just read a summary of his book. As I read it, he believed that humans evolved from metazoans that came from out space. Is this the argument you are supporting?


634 posted on 11/26/2006 8:50:55 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm

With them he developed the revolutionary "continuous creation" theory or the "steady-state" cosmology. Hoyle's paper was published in the journal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1948. Hoyle's Nature of the Universe (1950)

http://www.fredhoyle.com/

"Every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom had a beginning, but the universe itself did not."

 

These are not quotes of someone who believes in the God of the Holy Bible.

635 posted on 11/26/2006 9:27:56 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Does it offend you that I use evolutionist to prove my point off creation. LOL

With their quotes you can not say they make their decisions base on God. LOL

I did research that is why I used him.LOL

It must really lower your dogmatic faith in evolution when the erudite proponents can not figure it out.LOL
636 posted on 11/26/2006 9:32:57 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd; RunningWolf
Yeah I guess you are right, using a quote of an atheist who believed life came from outer space, because there was not enough time for evolution to take place on earth does not make sense to the evolutionist.

Oh but if I used some one who believed in creation as a quote they would be a crack pot

I guess we should just give in to the Religion of Evilution, all praise the mighty chaotic explosion {expansion for those who do not like noise}
637 posted on 11/26/2006 10:25:37 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 628 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

Sir Francis Hoyle was a hard headed Atheist, that did not wish to change his views no matter what the evidence against his views were.

He was becoming not a scientist, but a crotchety pissed off old man.

To use him as some basis for your arguments against evolution, if they can actually be called arguments, I call them screaching in the darkness, is not a good idea.

The "Big Bang" theory has so far made some excellent predictions, and is the best theory to explain the evidence thus far, just as Evolution is.

They are scientific theories, based on evidence, Sir Francis Hoyle had a real hard time with them, because he had certain beliefs himself, that the Big Bang, and the Theory of evolution did not agree with.

He may have had the mathematical background of statistics, but he completely misunderstood the theory of evolution, just as most of the creationists on this board do.


638 posted on 11/26/2006 10:38:21 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Is my account suspended?

I seem to be able to post.

And as far as deletions are concerned, it seems the people I was posting to can't handle the truth about the incident at DC, and therefore wished it expunged.


639 posted on 11/26/2006 10:39:39 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

Why else do they keep adding time to the presupposition view of an old universe.

He has been quoted in many science journals, because you do not agree with his view does not mean the rest of your buddies do not.

The only screeching is from you crying fowl, or is it foul, evolved from fovl, oh well can never remember if it is ascension or dissension with modification.

BTW I will not correct your spelling mistakes and make fun of you and your belief because of it.LOL
640 posted on 11/26/2006 10:53:08 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

As I said, your basic understanding of the TOE is flawed.

Nothing wrong with that, except the fact that you claim to be an expert at refuting it.

If you are going to refute it, you should at least know a little bit about it.

And it is obvious to anyone with a 8th grade biology education, that you haven't a clue.


641 posted on 11/26/2006 11:27:08 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
The "Big Bang" theory has so far made some excellent predictions, and is the best theory to explain the evidence thus far, just as Evolution i

Alfven, Hannes and Asoka Mendis, “interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” Nature, vol. 266 {April 21, 1977}, pp 698-699 at the time of writing these authors were in the Department of Physics at the University of California at San Diego.

p. 698 “The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree fo spatial isopropy and which closely fit’s a 2.7K black body spectrum, is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents.”

p.698 “The claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation.”

Burbidge, Geoffrey, “Why Only One Big Bang?” Scientific American (February 1992), p. 120

p. 120 “Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rest, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”

p.120 “This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.”

p.120 “Why then has th big bang become so deeply entrenched in modern thought? Everything evolves as a function of time except for the laws of physics. Hence, there are two immutable: the act of creation and the laws of physics, which spring forth fully fashioned from that act. The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists’ search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science.”

Guth, Alan H., “Cooking Up a Cosmos,” Astronomy, vol. 25 (Sept. 1997), pp. 54-57

p.54 “Since the big bang theory implies that the entire observed universe can evolve from a tiny speck, it’s tempting to ask whether a universe can in principle be created in a laboratory. Given what we know of the laws of physics, would it be possible for an extraordinarily advanced civilization to create new universes at will?”

p.54 “So to produce a universe by the standard big bang description, one must start with the energy of 10 billion universes!”

p54 “So in the inflationary theory the universe evolves form essentially nothing at all, which is why I frequently refer to it as the ultimate free lunch.”

Hoyle, Sir Fred, “The Big Bang under Attack,” Science Digest, vol. 92 (May 1984) p. 84

p.84 “Was there ever really a big bang? Even as greater and greater numbers of people have come to believe that the universe began with one great eruption, other have seen a persistent weakness in the theory-- a weakness tht is becoming ever harder to over look.”

p.84 “But in a single big bang there are no targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanding universe to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead. However, we actually have a universe of continuing activity instead of one that is uniform and inert.”

p84 “As a result of all this, the main efforts of investigators have been in papering over holes in the big bang theory, to build up an idea that has become ever more complex and cumbersome. . . .

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.”

Had to put Fred in again since you support him so.

God bless.

642 posted on 11/26/2006 11:44:51 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
As with all evolutionist your claim is I do not understand and you insult me with ignorance.

Thank you

May God bless you with knowledge, wisdom, and eye that see through the darkness.
643 posted on 11/26/2006 11:47:54 AM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

1977, and 1992, how fascinating.

Can you come up with something a bit more current, shall we say?

Using literally, in a scientific context anyway, ancient writings, to put across a point is pretty silly.

Perhaps you can find something a bit more modern, and bit more current, because the ancient text you are quoting is outdated, to say the least.


644 posted on 11/26/2006 11:53:01 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

Oh and I will tell you once again, if there were a scientific theory that replaced either evolution, or the big bang theory tomorrow, it would not upset my worldview in the least.

As a matter of fact, I would jump up and down for joy, knowledge is good, finding something unexpected, and something that would outdate those theories and replace them with theories that would explain the new evidence would be exciting, to say the least.

And once again, it would not shake my faith in the least, because my religious beliefs have nothing to do with science.


645 posted on 11/26/2006 11:55:52 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

It is not an insult to say that you don't know about evolution, a lot of people don't.

The insult is that you actually don't wish to learn.

God gave you a brain, you should put it to use.

As Mark Twain once said, A man has faith, because it is the only way he can believe in something that he knows ain't true.

Faith is a wonderful thing, but you shouldn't let it blind you to everything else. God gave you a brain, put it to use.


646 posted on 11/26/2006 11:58:25 AM PST by Jaguarbhzrd (We have fossils... We win! Lewis Black)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

Is it because science is your religion?


647 posted on 11/26/2006 12:01:03 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
That is untrue of your statement you do insult me. I know and understand the fable of evolution. And you have repeatedly claimed I have less than an 8th grade understanding of biology. I have shown that on more than one occasion that I understand this fairy tale of assumptions, with unattainable experiments or testable experiments based upon visible conclusions.

I know it is not possible to create something from nothing 2nd law of thermal dynamics (law of conservation of energy).

I know life does not come from non life, abiogenesis proved by Louis Pasteur.

Now you show me where in your evolutionary theory I do not understand these concepts that you hold your dogmatic faith to.
648 posted on 11/26/2006 12:17:05 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd
As Mark Twain once said, A man has faith, because it is the only way he can believe in something that he knows ain't true.

I hope you hold to that when you fly in a plane.
649 posted on 11/26/2006 12:18:30 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof. Salvation from the judgment of your sins is free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Creationist

Your statements just demonstrated your lack of understanding.


650 posted on 11/26/2006 12:32:31 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 551-600601-650651-700 ... 951-992 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson