Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
So based on your response in #37 should we mark you down as "Undecided" or "Ambivalent"?
.
;-P
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Festival of creationoid hysteria placemarker.
I don't doubt that there is debate on the topic among biologists. This sort of wrestling is what science is all about.
However, I am intrigued by the idea that the existance of the domesticated dog is somehow evidence for the fixity of species and a disproval of evolutionary theory. Here we have an animal which, though similar to wolves, has obvious physical and tempermental differences from wolves. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that contemporary dogs were bred from wolves. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that over several thousand years time men molded wolves into what we wanted them to be. Since these traits are determined genetically, it stands to reason that we have changed their genes over time. In my opinion the existance of domesticated animals supports the ideas that the forms animals take are *not* fixed, but instead can and do change over time. Were this not the case, wolves would have remained wolves and not have been bred into dogs, aurochs would not have been bred into cows, grass would not have been bred into wheat, and strains of streptococcus and gonorrhea bacteria would not have been bred (unintentionally) into penicillin-resistant varieties.
Yes -- which part were you having trouble understanding?
When you can repackage the chromosomes in a lab and create a new species,
Define "new species" as you are using it in this sentence.
or prove this by showing the world a current day mutation creating a permanent species, then I'll believe it.
Why "current day"? And define "a permanent species" -- as opposed to what, the temporary kind?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Until then, you are just speculating.
No, actually, I'm not. But I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand that.
You, however *are* merely speculating, since you are forming your opinion without even a superficial knowledge of the vast amount of evidence which is available on this subject.
Come on, son, take me up on my challenge in the earlier post -- if the vast amounts of evidence accumulated on this topic of biology (a tiny fraction of which is presented in that post, but it'll take you *months* to read just that tip of the iceberg) *isn't* actually the overwhelming support for evolutionary common descent that it certainly appears to be, then *where* exactly have all those myriads of biologists been mistaken, *what* actually explains the full body of evidence better, and *why* would your non-evolutionary alternative explanation end up "accidentally" causing all that evidence to only *look* like ironclad evidence for evolution?
Answer the question. Now.
Or admit that you're "just speculating" and don't really have any idea what in the hell you're talking about.
What I don't understand is, after the dinosaurs were wiped out, why didn't evolution make some more of them. Or is that in the works and we just have not waited long enough. Or, did evolution 'decide' to make some different stuff this time around.
Are wolves and dogs the same species? Yes or no?
Yeah right! And if life began in the primordial soup billions of years ago has it happened again since? was this just a one time thing?
One of the key events seems to have been a point mutation in the FOXP2 gene.
You guys get funnier the more you speak!
Are you dodging giving an answer MR educated intellect? It's a very easy thing to give an answer of yes or no. Is the wolf and the dog the same species?
So much of this debate is a Show Trial for Smartypants, which makes the "evidence" suspect from the start.
They are mistaken right from the start because evolution never happened across phylum boundries.
Simple.
Life was created, and life forms were created intact and complete.
Changes that occur within species is nothing more then genetic variation, not evolution.
And that is good science.
I'm sheepish to provide examples here, but hey....look at the platypus. ;^)
Really? Which ones?
His documents supporting missing links are missing links!
That joke was just barely funny the first time. And now you've used it, what, three times now? You're going to feel pretty silly once you sober up.
Willful blindness is almost always an incurable malady.
Naaa...just looking for evidence of something that is classified as both plant and animal.
And monkies are likely to fly out of my butt! What an evolutionary masterpiece of an event!
Wow, so much digital ink--so much ego! You have a lot at stake, here.
I don't have time to click all those links but,I'm certainly impressed!
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.