Posted on 09/01/2003 5:46:19 PM PDT by Tribune7
This is false, and is directly contradicted by posts 349 and 356.
Resistance to outside agents is not a new function. All life needs that to survive. It does not turn the bacteria into something new or into anything different or more complex. A new function would be resistance to outside agents not to a single particular outside agent. A change in hair color does not turn a woman into a new species even though it may make her look a bit more attractive. These simple changes are not evolution. Evolution requires new organs, new genes, new abilities, new functionality, and single mutations do not provide that.
I said no such thing.
Indeed you did, in post# 342 you gave cancerous melanoma as the ONLY example to justify evolution. Not only does it not justify it, but because it is not genetic and it is not passed on to the next generation, it could not have anything to do with evolution.
For one thing, evolution needs no justification.
In other ways because you say evolution has been proven, everyone is supposed to take your word for it. Sorry, it does not work that way. You need to back up your statements. For evolution to be science it has to provide scientific facts proving it to be true. You certainly cannot provide such facts - and no one else can.
You keep posting cancer as proving evolution but keep denying it!
Can you kindly give a scientific example of how evolution takes place which is not deadly??????????
Fine. You do not believe that evolution is true. You do not believe that anything proves evolution. Fine with me.
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.