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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 981-992 next last
To: mgstarr

I'm with you. If the moon shots had been real I'd be eating imported green cheese.


101 posted on 11/19/2006 3:13:27 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen

Then the real problem you have is that you don't understand it.


102 posted on 11/19/2006 3:14:53 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Ya, like when the geologists described the Mount St. Helens eruption as causing 10,000 years of geologic action in one day. Just another set of unproven theories.

It occurred to me that the nonsense you're trying to peddle is the idea that geologic events which are determined to have taken thousands or millions of years to unfold may instead have occurred quite swiftly, by a single volcanic eruption or some other similarly brief occurrence.

Let me briefly explain why this is idiotic.

I don't have the original quotes of course, assuming that they exist, but I can readily deduce that if a geologist described the Mount St. Helens eruption as causing 10,000 years of geologic action in one day then what the geologist was quite obviously saying is that in the absence of a volcanic eruption this 'geologic action' would take 10,000 years to occur (actually, it'd take far longer than that even to achieve the same results via sedimentation and erosion).

So what?

Even a reasonably bright fifth grade student could probably learn the same in his science class. Volcanic action achieves very swiftly what takes eons to achieve by virtually any other means. That is well known, and readily evidenced in the geologic record, where it's quite easy to distinguish whether such effects were caused very gradually by erosion/sedimentation or very swiftly by volcanic/seismic action.

Of course, to reiterate, I don't have the original quotes, but it's easy enough to deduce what was meant simply because if the geologist meant it in the way that seems to be implied then said geologist should never have received a degree.

103 posted on 11/19/2006 3:15:12 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Wow, what was that!

Evolution?


104 posted on 11/19/2006 3:15:39 PM PST by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
If the moon shots had been real

Which ones weren't?

105 posted on 11/19/2006 3:16:59 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

And if I assume a dog's tail is a leg then dogs have 5 legs?

Your assumption is in precisely the place that your inquiry should be


106 posted on 11/19/2006 3:17:16 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Ha! bear in mind, not everyone believes in it.


107 posted on 11/19/2006 3:17:17 PM PST by Minutemen ("It's a Religion of Peace")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
We are not really sure chimps can't breed successfully with humans.

BTW, the Darwin Finch business cited above probably involves methylated DNA and not permanent mutations. That's something that can be instantly influenced by diet, and within the same generation.

108 posted on 11/19/2006 3:19:27 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

All of them or, as I said, I'd be eating imported green cheese.


109 posted on 11/19/2006 3:19:45 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
We are not really sure chimps can't breed successfully with humans.

Yes, we are. They can't.

110 posted on 11/19/2006 3:20:22 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen

Not my problem.


111 posted on 11/19/2006 3:20:34 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Ranger? Surveyor?


112 posted on 11/19/2006 3:21:06 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dust in the Wind; navyguy

Again, we are probably looking at processes controlled by DNA methylation and not genetic variation.


113 posted on 11/19/2006 3:21:35 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen
The problem I have with evolutionary theory is: 1)If we evolved from fish, lizards or chimpanzes 2)in such a relatively short period of time, 3)why on earth is it taking so long for the rest of the fish, lizards & monkeys to morph into humans??

Evolutionary theory doesn't postulate 1,2, or 3.
114 posted on 11/19/2006 3:22:09 PM PST by somniferum (Annoy a liberal.. Work hard and be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

“This is NOT the kind of "evolution" necessary to get from a chimpanzee to a human”

Bzzt wrong answer, chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor, also what is the barrier that prevents accumulations of changes in DNA sequence leading to speciation?

“zero to sixty, in 5.6 million years”

Given that you’ve got at least 100 nucleotide differences in your genome from your parents, exactly why shouldn’t 6 million years be enough time?

“These kinds of small changes within the species are the kind of "evolution" that is true, and with which creationists have no problem. It is dishonest to say this is evolution as evolutionists propagate it.2

Again I ask you, what is the barrier then that prevents accumulation of change leading to speciation?

“Moreover, such unexpectedly rapid change supports a young-earth creationist perspective.”

Incorrect, the above is based on your own desire to bend data to fit your untenable hypothesis, if the above were true, how can we see the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.3 million light years away? Oh, and the natural reactors found in Africa indicate that the Fine structure constant has been invariant over the last 1.2 billion years or so, so please no specious rants about the value of C changing or any other unsubstantiated cant on decay rats etc.

“It shows that these minor changes do not take thousands or millions of years to occur.”

We know that already, perhaps you’ve heard of Punctuated Equilibrium?

“And this is further evidence against neodarwinian evolution.”

No the article is in fact further support for ToE, as it is defined as changes in allele frequency in a population over time.

“If this "microevolution" takes place quicker than it was thought, that means that the macroevolutionary changes would be more readily observable now, yet they are not.”


Speciation events have been observed, for instance you may wish to look at Spartina angelica as but one example.

[snip propaganda weblink]


115 posted on 11/19/2006 3:24:53 PM PST by bodrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Assume

As my mechanic likes to say, "There's your problem!"

116 posted on 11/19/2006 3:25:10 PM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

If my leg is being pulled, it just came off.

If not, track back to post 93, paragraph 2.

I might add the the earth is unquestionably flat since I can see the edges when I drive in Texas. Harder to see in big cities, though.


117 posted on 11/19/2006 3:25:58 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Back to the news story that starts this thread ~ DNA methylation can create the changes observed without any change whatsoever in allele frequency over time.


118 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:34 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

This story would be better titled: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Theory".


119 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:34 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minutemen
why on earth is it taking so long for the rest of the fish, lizards & monkeys to morph into humans??

Monkeys are a different branch and have evolved to where they are and may evolve to something. Lizards are a different branch and fish are a different branch. Branches are not taken as rejoining once they separate. Speciation is the hypothesis, not despeciation.

120 posted on 11/19/2006 3:26:57 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 981-992 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