Noaidi
slow walker
The_Evelyonian has been exposed to an unsafe level of irony and has been shut down to prevent further damage.
Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The_Evelyonian has been exposed to an unsafe level of irony and has been shut down to prevent further damage.
Rather only an insultive banter of people with opinions that have no back up. I also say there will be no proof because it is a theory. Science itself has stated the obvious! Eat your hearts out guys and gals...go for the juggular!
Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.
Here: Study Catches Two Bird Populations As They Split Into Separate Species
We have observed a species of flycatcher (bird) that due to a single point mutation, has begun to split into two separate species. Even though the two types of flycatcher are in the same area, they no longer breed together or even attempt to. The males, which have to compete for mates, don't view the other type as a threat to getting their own mate, yet are extremely hostile towards their own type when they enter their territory. This is speciation; the arise of new species, one changing into another.
I've had a brief look at the websites. It is very interesting. This business about 1-4% neanderthall DNA is particularly interesting.
I thought humans shared something like 96% DNA with most living creatures anyway, including primates and fish anyway.
I research it further. I have always believed that this 96% DNA was the basic building block for life that all living creatures share.
I guess if this is the case then I would hope for a find, say around, 98% DNA match.
If true, they are still flycatchers. They haven't changed into a new 'kind'. Again, it is simply adaptation within animal kinds.
1. That's not what you asked for. You asked for a new species. This is what we mean when we call YECs like you dishonest.
2. Could you define "kind" please? Thank you.
This poster does not understand what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. He has obtained his understanding from the popular media or possibly church, and is at a comic book level. This is the sort of poster who would benefit greatly from learning what ToE actually is.
The problem with this kind of assertion is that it makes no sense. It's literally gibberish. It's like he's saying, "ToE is false because there are no unicorns in my water glass," and you're left kind of going--wha?! You have to explain such basic stuff first.
To the poster: Every species is a species, and every species is in between two other species, living or extinct. Think of all of life as a continuum of species gradually shading from one to another. In this sense, every species, and none, is an "interspecies" or "in the middle."
Hey, anyone here got a manual for an old Evelyonian? We need to re-boot urgently.
Old? I'll have you know that I happen to be a top-of-the-line Evelyonian.
No, it's reality.You state "Think of all of life as a continuum of species gradually shading from one to another." That is utter nonsense,
No, it doesn't.and flys in the face of the fossil record.
There is.If species gradually shaded into new species, there should be evidence of this in the fossil record.
Professor of natural science John Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.Should Evolution Be Taught?, 1970, pages 9, 14.
... much like that TRS-80 computer I have in my basement.
Old? I'll have you know that I happen to be a top-of-the-line Evelyonian.
Ha! Sorry about that. Hope your drives didn't get wiped completely clean.
If true, they are still flycatchers. They haven't changed into a new 'kind'. Again, it is simply adaptation within animal kinds.
He is someone who spouts a bunch of lies and non-sense in hopes that others will blindly accept his bull ****.So where's the proof big guy..seeing as you you feel you have all the smart answers.
Whose Kent Hovind? Is he someone with alot of opinions but not much else!