Skip to comments.Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought
Posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:27 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
I'm with you. If the moon shots had been real I'd be eating imported green cheese.
Then the real problem you have is that you don't understand it.
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).
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.
Which ones weren't?
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
Ha! bear in mind, not everyone believes in it.
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.
All of them or, as I said, I'd be eating imported green cheese.
Yes, we are. They can't.
Not my problem.
Again, we are probably looking at processes controlled by DNA methylation and not genetic variation.
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 youve got at least 100 nucleotide differences in your genome from your parents, exactly why shouldnt 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 youve 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]
As my mechanic likes to say, "There's your problem!"
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.
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.
This story would be better titled: "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Theory".
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.
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.