"So long. And thanks for all the fish" 
Posted on 01/12/2005 8:00:35 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Genetically, they can. There are structural problems, but they can be bred in vitro. They are the same species. Given time, and both breeds continuing to diverge under the force of selective breeding, there's no reason to think that a new species will not evolve.
Big and healthy correlate with intelligence, believe it or not. We are talking statistices here, not individual cases.
But I suspect that given the choice between wealth and muscle, more women would choose wealth.
That's pretty much the definition of a ring species.
A wing is simply a modified foreleg. There is no "wing gene."
I don't mind the mockery. I'd rather the Lord be pleased that I trust His Word.
Don't know. Individual cases are not a trend.
Clinton doesn't seem to have had many children, but he attracted lots of women.
Again, statistics are not invalidated by individual cases.
Better go back and study your science. Carbon dating has absolutely nothing to do with the determination of the age of the earth. Carbon dating is only useful to date objects up to about 40 thousand years old. The half-life of C-14 is too short to allow dating much beyond that age. Furthermore, carbon dating doesn't use the total amount of carbon in the object, but rather the ratio of the amount of the radioactive carbon 14 isotope to the stable carbon 12 isotope. It applies only to objects that were once alive. It can be used to date the death of that object. While alive, organisms replace the carbon 14 that decays with fresh carbon 14 from the environment. Once dead, this exchange stops and the carbon 14 decays at a known rate. The ratio of C-14 to C-12 in a living organism is the same as that in the environment as a whole and is known. This ratio declines as the C-14 decays and therefore this ratio provides a measure of the time since the death of the organism. For rocks and other older objects, similar techniques are used, but with different isotopes which decay more slowly. None rely on the total amount of a given element, but rather on the ratio of a radioactive isotope to a stable one. While there have been cases where radiometric dating has yielded incorrect results, these were generally cases where an old sample was contaminated by younger material (or vice-versa). Typically ages determined by separate techniques give similar results, which lends credibility to the dating methods.
About the only correct sentence in your post was your admission that you are not an expert yourself.
For example carbon dating is only used up to a few tens-of-thousands of years. Other dating techniques are used for older rock, and different techniques give correlating results that show the earth to be around 4 billion years old. If your religion doesn't like that then your religion has a problem, not science.
Another example: Flood geology completely fails to explain observations of the geological column and fossil deposition. If you don't believe this try googling for Glen Morton. He used to be a young earth creationist like yourself who actually wrote creationist "scientific" papers but he got a job as a geologist and found that all he had been taught by the flood geologists was lies that did not agree with the data.
Just wait and see!
I don't know of any species capable of surviving the total destruction of the planet. But if you are referring to humans, you need to know that a significant percentage of your body weight is comprised of microorganisms.
More women would choose both - lol
Isn't this a contradiction? I always thought that walking/running upright and later, using fire were the two major advances.
It appears to be difficult to describe evolution without projecting the characteristics of a Personality onto the process.
Exactly. I wanted to point out why the phenomenon of ring species is evidence in favor of evolution.
"If there were, evolution would be a fact and have public support, which it isn't and doesn't."
Evolution isn't a fact because it's a theory. There are other theories that haven't been conclusively proven but are probably true, like the Big Bang Theory.
Yup, any creatures with the prescience to make themselves indispensable to us will survive as well. I'm quite certain we will be able to eliminate all 'undesirables' long before the planet is destroyed (of course, 'we' will almost certainly have become a different species by then, but they will inherit the requisite capability from us). Just stick around, and you'll see too! ;)
Give it a rest -it is evident your brainwashing is complete and you have no desire to change your opinion so cut the rhetoric...
There are probably more creatures with more than
two genders than with two. If I remember rightly,
one form of mushroom was found to have 11 genders.
I think that's the record so far.
What if they were originally designed and manufactured that way?
"So long. And thanks for all the fish"
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.