Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run
Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist; delusionalnutjobs; evolution; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; whataloadoffeces
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,188 next last
To: MedicalMess

Step out of your bubble and join us in the real world where people actually learn to get along with differing viewpoints.

Why are you so bitter?

Its too bad your attitude (displayed here and hopefully WONT get deleted) is what it is.

Its actually quite sad.


101 posted on 01/31/2006 8:05:19 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
My child is dead and another is deaf and one is ok.

My God has assured me I will see the dead one again, the deaf will hear and I will have all my children with me some day.


He rates pretty high with me.

You may want to reduce the caffeine intake.
102 posted on 01/31/2006 8:12:13 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess

That's about enough of that, thanks! We can discuss the TOE, creationism, and intelligent design without calling names.

Your posts are ugly, wrong, and unintelligible, for the most part.

Please stop calling people names here on FR. If you have something to add to the discussion, please do so, but do it in a reasonable way.


103 posted on 01/31/2006 8:12:30 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts

It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts


104 posted on 01/31/2006 8:13:07 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Garbage, and you know it. Which Creationist, anywhere or at any time has ever exposed fraudulent science?

The answer is simple - none, because no Creationist knows enough about science to spot a fraud. It is true that the frauds are played up, but it is also true that the huge percentage of good solid science is also ignored.

You should know that - you are here often enough. Shame.


105 posted on 01/31/2006 8:25:03 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
"I'm alive and have Jesus formula because I put in the research and science to find it? It's only your kids' life. Will praying fix your kid. Probably not, but our formula will."

Just a suggestion from a Luddite. Increase your dose of the formula.

106 posted on 01/31/2006 8:27:41 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan; MedicalMess

MM needs to crawl back under his rock.


107 posted on 01/31/2006 8:29:17 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Bttt for later read of the links. :-)

(In the lab at the moment)


108 posted on 01/31/2006 8:29:24 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact. Which is disingenuous of our education system and needs to be corrected.
109 posted on 01/31/2006 8:30:50 AM PST by Dustbunny (Can we build it - Yes we can - Bob the Builder - Can we win it - Yes we can - Geo. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; MineralMan

Oops, I was too quick before I realized you two both got the same initials. Medical Mess needs to crawl back under his rock.

(sorry)


110 posted on 01/31/2006 8:30:50 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
In the lab at the moment

And doing the devil's work, no doubt.
</creationism mode>

111 posted on 01/31/2006 8:32:05 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

PING


112 posted on 01/31/2006 8:32:10 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping List Freepmail me if you want on or off this ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; MineralMan

Well, for a Mineral Man....I'm not sure that was even a put down. :)


113 posted on 01/31/2006 8:34:35 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: december12
Somebody needs to open a book and go back to Comparative Vertabrate Anatomy and learn something. Darwin wasn't making a large claim - only that as things change in the environment - animals adapt in morphology. This isn't hard to understand.

And it doesn't refute the fact than humans were created by external intervention(s).

As long as the facts are kept away from the argument then hot air will rise.

114 posted on 01/31/2006 8:34:43 AM PST by i.l.e. (Tagline - this space for sale....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact. Which is disingenuous of our education system and needs to be corrected.

Darwinism? About the only folks who use that term are creationists.

But if you are referring to the Theory of Evolution -- well, it a theory. It says so right there on the label.

See the definitions in post #100, above.

115 posted on 01/31/2006 8:37:37 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Bump

Great find.

116 posted on 01/31/2006 8:38:48 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; longshadow
And doing the devil's work, no doubt.

Using the black candles today.

But HEY! You/I already know this since you/I got "cold busted" by Longshadow wnen he figured out were were the same guy yesterday.

117 posted on 01/31/2006 8:39:01 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Yeah, and George Bush is about to be impeached. He's cowering under the bed as I type.

The truth is, most of the flap about ID is generated by religious people, for religious people. ID has not traction in the scientific community because it has not scientific basis. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
The truth is, most science people are upset about ID for the same reasons that they'd be supset about astrology being taught in the schools: they detest the increasing scientific illiteracy of the public and don't want to see it accelerate.

118 posted on 01/31/2006 8:39:22 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phelanw
Why?

Because it is not science. It fails to conform to the scientific method.

Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it.

You mean like explaining how Behe's "irreducable complexity" is founded upon a fundamentally false premise?

I can't say about any other refutations of it since it's simply impossible to pin down what ID is: some people say that it's the theory that evolution did happen, but it cannot by itself explain all species diversity; some say that it's the idea that evolution didn't happen at all, and some kind of unnamed "intelligent designer" created all life; some say that it also applies to the universe itself; and some say that it's literal six-day creationism with all of the overtly Biblical elements removed.

Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

No it isn't! That's debate! Education is teaching an established viewpoint. I haven't learned "opposing" methods of computer design in my engineering studies. Students don't learn "opposing" methods for how gravity operates in physics class. Students don't learn "opposing" models of the atom in chemistry. Students don't learn "opposing" views of historical accounts in history classes. Students don't learn "opposing" views of grammatical structure and spelling in English classes (ebonics garbage notwithstanding). Where did people get the idea that high school classes were all about presenting a "dialogue" between "opposing viewpoints", and why do they only seem to apply that to biological sciences?
119 posted on 01/31/2006 8:39:39 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: carumba

I agree, but no brain can ever know truth from illusion 100%. More precisely, "to know is to change" - by measuring anything, we affect it, and so any definite conclusions can only be made of the past.


120 posted on 01/31/2006 8:41:50 AM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Literally hundreds of geneticists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, mathematicians and other scientists

You can get "hundreds" of (people capable of passing themselves off as) scientists to assert that space aliens are visiting Earth for the purpose of abducting people and sticking probes up their nethers.

121 posted on 01/31/2006 8:41:53 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I'm quite confident in saying that evolution predicts an ape in the ancestry of humans.

Eh, it's semantics. Many creationists believe that evolution states that humans came from contemporary apes, rather than a no longer existing ape ancestor species. This is because they haven't actually bothered to study anything about the species, so they have the impression of evolution as some sort of linear progression, begging the question of "why are there still apes".
122 posted on 01/31/2006 8:43:04 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

OK.... Darwin's Theory is taught as fact and it is not a fact.


123 posted on 01/31/2006 8:44:06 AM PST by Dustbunny (Can we build it - Yes we can - Bob the Builder - Can we win it - Yes we can - Geo. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
Interestingly, Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, informed this writer that he set aside three days of hearings for pro-evolutionist experts, and three days for the skeptics, with each side allowed to cross-examine the other. The pro-evolutionist experts refused to testify and be questioned. The skeptics testified and faced cross-examination.

By this "logic", if Bush and Cheney decline to appear before the assembly of moonbats who plan to put them on "trial", that proves that Bush and Cheney are guilty.

124 posted on 01/31/2006 8:44:59 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact.

1) It's "Theory of Evolution". Darwin was of great import to the theory, but a lot of work has gone into refining the theory by many, many other people.

2) You say "always been a theory" as though it could be something else. What else could an explanation behind the events leading to current observations be?
125 posted on 01/31/2006 8:45:20 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
They're saying it shouldn't be taught in a science class, especially biology class.

Or in a "religious belief and scientific misrepresentation taught as established truth" mislabelled as a "philosophy" class.
126 posted on 01/31/2006 8:47:18 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
YOU PEOPLE WORSHIP A SPACE ALIEN!

Bow before Apophis!

127 posted on 01/31/2006 8:49:32 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
) You say "always been a theory" as though it could be something else. What else could an explanation behind the events leading to current observations be?

The theory that GOD created it all.

128 posted on 01/31/2006 8:51:28 AM PST by Dustbunny (Can we build it - Yes we can - Bob the Builder - Can we win it - Yes we can - Geo. W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia

And every professional scientist I've asked, including devout Christians.

instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster

Which has a definition of "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". It's a bit vague, but it is a good summary and a good starting point for expanding further on explaining what makes an explanation qualify as a theory. Unfortunately, creationists either want to insist that a one-sentence definition from a dictionary is sufficient to fully and completely explain a scientific term when it is not or, more commonly, they wish to use one of the five other definitions of the word from the same dictionary and insist that they are allowed to pick and choose which definition of the word "theory" scientists really mean to use when they use the word "theory", regardless of what the scientists who use the word say.

In other words: one of the strongest arguments creationists have is dishonest semantic games whereby they redefine the word "theory" to make it sound less certain than it really is.
129 posted on 01/31/2006 8:52:58 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
The theory that GOD created it all.

Not only is that a misinterpretation of my question, but it's also completely wrong. The statement "GOD created it all" does not qualify as a "theory", for multiple reasons.
130 posted on 01/31/2006 8:53:48 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

Opinion is not evidence, and all you ever post is highly subjective opinion, and out and out falsehood. Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist is all we need to judge the credibility of the tripe you constantly post to disrupt these threads.

131 posted on 01/31/2006 8:54:22 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
The entire crust of the earth collapsed inward, blew apart, and shifted.

And it was Bush's fault!

132 posted on 01/31/2006 8:55:09 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mc6809e
Anyone that believes the theory of evolution claims that man came from apes doesn't know the theory enough to criticize it. You're obviously ignorant.

here let me fix that for you.

Anyone that believes God is a space alien doesn't know the theory enough to criticize it. You're obviously ignorant.

see how fun it is to play the namecalling game.
not really.

133 posted on 01/31/2006 8:56:05 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Thanks for your definitions. Let's appply some of them to the TOE:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
The TOE is a theory based on the above definition. I have no quarrel with that. Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence? Don't limit this to the TOE, but answer in terms of generality about theories.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
The TOE does have a hypothesis, and it has not yet been verified.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God. Given this faulty assumption, the TOE also assumes that science is the only begetter of Truth. This is also faulty, as science cannot explain beauty, aesthetics, faith, or quite a few other things.
134 posted on 01/31/2006 8:57:54 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

It's far easier for creationists to dismiss Ichnuemon's massive evidence-filled posts as "worthless spam" than it is to actually address the content -- even some of the content. Addressing the content would require the creationists to actually understand the evidence for evolution, and they can't allow themselves to do that.

Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist

Instead, all they have to offer are lies.
135 posted on 01/31/2006 8:58:00 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Sweetjustusnow; Siena Dreaming
"How many more thousands of papers would you like to see covering the overwhelming evidence for the human/ape common ancestry?"

We don't want to see any propaganda papers; we want evidence and that is non-existant, so you continue to post opinion papers ad nauseum. We already know your opinion.

136 posted on 01/31/2006 8:59:20 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Here's my question--what happens to a theory when a piece of evidence comes to light that refutes it, even in the face of all previously supporting evidence?

Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

No, it does not. Any conclusions that you derive from this faulty premise will also be faulty, so there is no need to comment further.
137 posted on 01/31/2006 8:59:41 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That's because some scientists insist on using their own special boys club definition of theory that can't be found anywhere but on FR and wikipedia instead of a more commonly known reliable, objective, source like Merriam Webster; which BTW was the definition that I was taught when I got my degree and public state university. None of this "special definiton used only by scientists" stuff just so they can tell the unenlightened that they don't know what they're talking about and that they need to go back to college and get a *real* education.

What a bunch of flapdoodle. The definition of a theory in science is well known by just about every scientist anywhere.

138 posted on 01/31/2006 9:00:15 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
we want evidence and that is non-existant,

You are a liar. When evidence is provided, you dismiss it as "propaganda", refuse to even look at it and insist that no evidence has been provided.
139 posted on 01/31/2006 9:00:36 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite; metmom; Ichneumon
If I printed out #15, not only would it be taller than I am, it would need an elevator and an area code.

Do you goofballs recognize the absurd irony of you complaints re Ichneumon's posts? You constantly appear on these threads (Hoplite, I don't recognize you so I'm using the perjorative "you") and whine about how there's "no evidence."

So Ichneumon performs a valuable service to folks like you, sparing you the trouble of opening a textbook or seeking out knowledge on your own. And then you complain; "Ahhh, it's too much! Too much evidence! Aaaahhh." (Despite the fact that his posts represent less than a thousandth of a percent of the known evolutionary evidence, give or take.)

And then you'll pop up on another thread to whine about how there's no evidence again. Can you feel my frustration through the internet. Can you visualize me shaking my head at you people? Do you EVER stop to wonder why we call creationists head-in-the-sand liars?
140 posted on 01/31/2006 9:01:17 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Opinion is not evidence.


141 posted on 01/31/2006 9:02:41 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

You're spamming.


142 posted on 01/31/2006 9:02:45 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

Everything Ichy posts is propaganda and opinion, no evidence.


143 posted on 01/31/2006 9:04:12 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Opinion is not evidence.

Ichneumon's post was a collection of observations and conclusions derived from those observations. The conclusions are not "opinion". If you believe that the conclusions are in error, you are free to point out where the error(s) in reasoning leading to the conclusion are. However, dismissing the presentation of facts as "opinion" only makes you look like a liar: either you have not read the piece at all, meaning that you are lying when you claim to know anything about it or you have read the piece and you are lying about what you read in it.
144 posted on 01/31/2006 9:04:46 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

Comment #145 Removed by Moderator

To: Dimensio
Either the theory is refined and readjusted, or -- if the refuting evidence is too severe and contradicts the theory in a fundamental way -- the theory is discarded entirely.

Thank you. Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

Once that has been explained satisfactorily, I'll listen to more evidence that the TOE may be true.

No, it does not.

Yes it does, as it attempts to use nothing but chance and slective breeding to explain us. There is no reference to a God (or His absence) anywhere within the TOE, thus it assumes He is persona non grata.

146 posted on 01/31/2006 9:07:04 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
A real science education would equip students to challenge or defend any theory.

And surely you know by now there is only one theory that explains common descent. Of course, if your layman definition of what a theory is somehow encompasses creationism/ID, fine. Just be prepared for the 500 or so equally as valid creation myths to get their due as well.
147 posted on 01/31/2006 9:07:29 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Here is where I believe that the TOE fails. It makes at least one major assumption that cannot be proven by science. It assumes that there is no God.

Utter nonsense. TOE makes no such assumption, and I defy you to find any scientific textbook that says it does.

148 posted on 01/31/2006 9:08:15 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
YOU PEOPLE WORSHIP A SPACE ALIEN!

And you want to impress the rest of us with your intellectual maturity and scientific reasoning?

HHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA, HHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA, HHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA....

That's rather shortsighted and sterotypical. You don't know what each person's conception might be. And futhermore, a lot of scientists are seen like this to many because of their dispositions:

I AM GOD!


149 posted on 01/31/2006 9:08:52 AM PST by 101st-Eagle (The ACLU is a communist organization posing as a liberty fighter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Please explain how an asexually-reproducing creature will eventually create a sexually-reproducing creature. Then explain how two asexually-reproducing creatures can produce two complementary-but-different sexually-reproducing creatures--within the same lifetime and in the same geographical area so that they may meet and reproduce.

Do you consider bacteria sexual or asexual?

150 posted on 01/31/2006 9:09:16 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,151-1,188 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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