1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    14 Feb '12 22:23
    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

    This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86298
    14 Feb '12 22:341 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

    This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.
    Right.

    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

    Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Feb '12 22:37
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Right.

    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

    Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
    its the best they can do.
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    14 Feb '12 23:042 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Right.

    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

    Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
    What do you mean by evolution of one species into another? Do you think, for example, that evolution says that at some point an ape gave birth to a human as we humans are now!???

    If we start off with some creature C and suppose for each generation the offspring undergo at least one mutation, it is not an intrinsic property of creature C that prevents us from calling one of its descendants a creature of type D after some number of mutations; instead It is humans who make the designation for among many reasons, ease of classification.

    Do you think that say, a fruit fly could (hypothetically) undergo infinitely many mutations and yet it would still always be most similar to a fruitfly than any other creature!??? 😕
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    14 Feb '12 23:06
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338230/title/Classic_sooty-moth_tale_bolstered_by_new_results

    This is a true evolutionary change driven by natural forces.
    They should have said this is “a compelling example of adaptaion in action.”
    This is how God created it to work.
  6. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51427
    15 Feb '12 00:18
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Right.

    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/the_peppered_moth

    Firstly choose an example with scientific credibility. Secondly, natural selection within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
    Evolution of one species into another? What would that be?
  7. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51427
    15 Feb '12 00:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    its the best they can do.
    And the self confessed closed-minded ignoramus would of course know all about these things.🙄
  8. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    15 Feb '12 00:26
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    its the best they can do.
    new species are evolving all the time.

    this one has been observed in the lab.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    15 Feb '12 05:44
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    new species are evolving all the time.

    this one has been observed in the lab.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
    Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
    God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
    how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
    action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏
  10. Joined
    04 May '11
    Moves
    13077
    15 Feb '12 06:52
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
    God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
    how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
    action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏
    Evolution = adaptation. It's as simple as that.
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86298
    15 Feb '12 07:06
    Originally posted by Agerg
    What do you mean by evolution of one species into another? Do you think, for example, that evolution says that at some point an ape gave birth to a human as we humans are now!???

    If we start off with some creature C and suppose for each generation the offspring undergo at least one mutation, it is not an intrinsic property of creature C that prevents us fro ...[text shortened]... tions and yet it would still always be most similar to a fruitfly than any other creature!??? 😕
    I understand the theory of evolution, and you explaining it again does not validate the clumsy OP which uses an example of scientific fakery to try give evidence of "evolution in action".

    Whether of not the theory of evolution of species is factual, I do not accept that natural selection within a species is evidence of that fact. In the OP for example the moths were still moths it was mearly a matter of one characteristic (colour) being naturally selected.
  12. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86298
    15 Feb '12 07:10
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Evolution of one species into another? What would that be?
    Are you saying you do not understand 'classification of species' and you don't accept that the theory of evolution provides a long-term genetic platform for one species, through natural selection over millions of years to become so changed, that it would be re-classified as a different species?
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Feb '12 07:352 edits
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    And the self confessed closed-minded ignoramus would of course know all about these things.🙄
    my my the insults are flying today, and actually i brought this very species to the
    attention of Andrew Hamilton when he used to frequent the site !
  14. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    15 Feb '12 08:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Again, you evolutionists are confusing evolution with adaptation and the way
    God created things to work. Evolution simply does not happen no matter
    how much you wish it would. We have only evidence of God's program in
    action to allow adaptation of the organisms, not evolution. 😏
    no doofus, that's not a mere "adaptation." it's evolution of new species.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    15 Feb '12 08:22
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    no doofus, that's not a mere "adaptation." it's evolution of new species.
    no its not you doofling, its still bacteria, clutchety clutch at strawety straw.
Back to Top