Mars vs evolution

Fatmop · Sep 3, 2005

Your post was much more efficient than mine. To think of all the time I wasted writing that...

CMIYC · Sep 3, 2005

Fatmop said:
What a wonderful truism. "If [it] exists [...] then [...] it is [...] possible." And if it doesn't exist, then it can't be possible!! Now, talk to a biologist and ask if it exists. Read the works of Stephen Jay Gould et all. Do a fruit fly experiment on your own. Then come back and tell us that evolution is wrong.

OK. pick on my English! One as smart as yourself would have gathered by now, that English is my 2nd language. does that make me stupid because Im not of English decent?I think it might work the other way for not recognizing the obvious.
And as for biology I think you all should acquire knowledge yourselves before making observed claims. If anything biology supports non evolutionary life, while it is under suspicion Viral mutations of the DNA are capable changing the species, for better or for worse. But the same viral mutation have caused cancer. To my observational knowledge presented ON THIS SUBJECT, nothing goes past micro evolution and when time is permissible life will go back to the original form as quickly as possible.
Say we go the opposite way and you do find life on Mars, will you be jumping up and down in joy saying SEE evolution is real and all your non illogical beliefs are just that?
I think you might, and I bet you are probably praying to some test tube formula right this minute to help stir things your way. Hah! And why do all of you deny balance and harmony exists? Evidence is not in the books alone, it is also threw observation. Good evidence of this is the introduction of different species to the environment, like the CAIN TOAD to Australia and the MONGUS to Hawaii just two example. It didnt take long for the environment to become imbalanced, RESULTextinction.

JerryL · Sep 3, 2005

CMIYC said:
OK. pick on my English!

The quote you quoted does not pick on your English.

One as smart as yourself would have gathered by now, that English is my 2nd language. does that make me stupid because Im not of English decent?

No, your stupidity seems to be merely coincidental.

And as for biology I think you all should acquire knowledge yourselves before making observed claims.

Good idea.

If anything biology supports non evolutionary life,

What methodolgy did you use to aquire this knowledge?

while it is under suspicion Viral mutations of the DNA are capable changing the species, for better or for worse. But the same viral mutation have caused cancer.

Mutations can do "good" things, they ca nyo "bad" things, and they usually do nothing at all.

To my observational knowledge presented ON THIS SUBJECT

What method are you using to observe mutations? Do you have a gene sequencer? What lab do you work at?

nothing goes past micro evolution

Please define for me what is "microevolution" and how it's different from "macroevolution".

and when time is permissible life will go back to the original form as quickly as possible.

Please give a single example.

Say we go the opposite way and you do find life on Mars, will you be jumping up and down in joy saying SEE evolution is real and all your non illogical beliefs are just that?

Huh?

I think you might, and I bet you are probably praying to some test tube formula right this minute to help stir things your way. Hah!

I'm thinking more like "huh?" right now.

And why do all of you deny balance and harmony exists?

I deny no such thing.

Evidence is not in the books alone,

Books record evidence, they are not evidence (unless you are studying the evolution of the bookwork).

it is also threw observation.

Replace "also" with "only"

Good evidence of this is the introduction of different species to the environment, like the CAIN TOAD to Australia and the MONGUS to Hawaii just two example. It didnt take long for the environment to become imbalanced, RESULTextinction.

Are you asserting that there were no extinctions before?

How about instead of the cane toad we look at the camel in Australia, or the horse in North America, or American goatsbeard, or the apple tree. Balance happens on its own. When everything that's gonna die from the cane toad is dead there will again be a (new) balance.

Ryan2065 · Sep 3, 2005

CMIYC said:
I think you might, and I bet you are probably praying to some test tube formula right this minute to help stir things your way. Hah! And why do all of you deny balance and harmony exists? Evidence is not in the books alone, it is also threw observation. Good evidence of this is the introduction of different species to the environment, like the CAIN TOAD to Australia and the MONGUS to Hawaii just two example. It didnt take long for the environment to become imbalanced, RESULTextinction.

So wait, you are saying that if you introduce a new species into a new environment they will die? Or are you saying something else became extinct... Because, logically, two examples does not mean it happens everywhere. I could give you a few examples off the top of my head that would support introducing a new species to an environment and either the new animal threw the environment off balance because it had no natural predator, or the animal just plain adapted to living in that environment.

CMIYC said:
Say we go the opposite way and you do find life on Mars, will you be jumping up and down in joy saying SEE evolution is real and all your non illogical beliefs are just that?

Oh I am sure the religious world will come up with an example of why there is life on mars if we find it. =) They are real good at changing their story when someone proves them wrong.

CMIYC said:
And as for biology I think you all should acquire knowledge yourselves before making observed claims. If anything biology supports non evolutionary life, while it is under suspicion Viral mutations of the DNA are capable changing the species, for better or for worse. But the same viral mutation have caused cancer. To my observational knowledge presented ON THIS SUBJECT, nothing goes past micro evolution and when time is permissible life will go back to the original form as quickly as possible.

Ok ok, so first off you are saying that if there is a change in the species, no matter what the species will try its hardest to go back to the origional plan for it? Ok, here is a good example of evolution for you to consider.
You take a bunch of fruit flies and separate them into two groups. One group has red eyes (genetic defect) the other has the regular black eyes. You let these two groups breed only with each other and just keep them that way. So then you have a bunch of fruit flies, one with red eyes, the other with black eyes. Now, split your 2 groups into 4 groups. One group will be all of the smaller fruit flies, the second will be all of the bigger fruit flies (and of course they are still separated red eyes to black eyes.) Now let these guys breed all together. Now take fruit flies and separate them according to hair. The ones with hair put them on one side, the ones without put them on another, so now you have eight groups. See where I am going with this? Now as you are doing all of these groups, years are passing. Keep watching the fruit flies and wait for some fruit flies to be born with genetic defects, and set them aside. Start breeding the ones together that are born without wings. So now you have split them into 16 groups. Now, take someone who didnt know anything about fruit flies, and show them two gropus. One group will have red eyes, be hairy, be big, and have wings. The other will have black eyes, have no hair, be small and have no wings. Ask them if thats one species of fly or two, I'm willing to bet they will think its a different species of fly, in fact they might not even classify the one wingless one as a fly!

CMIYC · Sep 3, 2005

JerryL What methodolgy did you use to aquire this knowledge? .[/QUOTE said:
.

Im using different references including mythological, philosophical, biological, nuclear logical, astrological and any other sours I can jam logical behind it. Basically, Im cross-referencing other peoples hard work and putting it in a logical working order.

JerryL said:
What methodolgy did you use to aquire this knowledge?

Same as above.

JerryL said:
What method are you using to observe mutations? Do you have a gene sequencer? What lab do you work at?

Really, same methods as you. If you can do it I can do it.

JerryL said:
Please define for me what is "microevolution" and how it's different from "macroevolution".

my explanation to you would be to no avail, so I will point you in the right direction http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm see the problem even if it where possible for macro evolution, the evidence is still a speculation and most likely improbable.

JerryL said:
How about instead of the cane toad we look at the camel in Australia, or the horse in North America, or American goatsbeard, or the apple tree. Balance happens on its own. When everything that's gonna die from the cane toad is dead there will again be a (new) balance.

Yes, I agree with you but the imbalance has occurred and most of the time on the expense of other species. Lets concentrate on one country Australia and the impact of such introductions. Introduction of rabbits has resulted in having to find a virus to eliminate the species. Wild Dear has been radiated in the last five years, foxes are killing cattle in large prepositions wild horses in north and central Australia are been radiated. All these introduction have contributed to unstable the environment, from fauna to flora. The example you have given all are controlled by human beings, not really a relevant argument in your favor.

CMIYC · Sep 3, 2005

Ryan2065 said:
Ok ok, so first off you are saying that if there is a change in the species, no matter what the species will try its hardest to go back to the origional plan for it? Ok, here is a good example of evolution for you to consider.
You take a bunch of fruit flies and separate them into two groups. One group has red eyes (genetic defect) the other has the regular black eyes. You let these two groups breed only with each other and just keep them that way. So then you have a bunch of fruit flies, one with red eyes, the other with black eyes. Now, split your 2 groups into 4 groups. One group will be all of the smaller fruit flies, the second will be all of the bigger fruit flies (and of course they are still separated red eyes to black eyes.) Now let these guys breed all together. Now take fruit flies and separate them according to hair. The ones with hair put them on one side, the ones without put them on another, so now you have eight groups. See where I am going with this? Now as you are doing all of these groups, years are passing. Keep watching the fruit flies and wait for some fruit flies to be born with genetic defects, and set them aside. Start breeding the ones together that are born without wings. So now you have split them into 16 groups. Now, take someone who didnt know anything about fruit flies, and show them two gropus. One group will have red eyes, be hairy, be big, and have wings. The other will have black eyes, have no hair, be small and have no wings. Ask them if thats one species of fly or two, I'm willing to bet they will think its a different species of fly, in fact they might not even classify the one wingless one as a fly!

Will you guys give these fruit flies are brake, if you dont leave them alone, sooner or later linked to dinosaurs of some kind. More proof that creation over evolution is still alive even after you have found human intervention results in different colored fruit flies eyes. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html also acknowledge this site for me please http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200508u/fb2005-08-10

Ryan2065 · Sep 4, 2005

CMIYC said:
Will you guys give these fruit flies are brake, if you dont leave them alone, sooner or later linked to dinosaurs of some kind. More proof that creation over evolution is still alive even after you have found human intervention results in different colored fruit flies eyes. http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/050829-10.html also acknowledge this site for me please http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200508u/fb2005-08-10

I don't get it, your giving sources against yourself and for evolution (well at least the nature.com one is... i don't subscribe to theatlantic.com so I cannot see it.)

Quoth The Raven · Sep 4, 2005

CMIYC said:
Lets concentrate on one country Australia and the impact of such introductions. Introduction of rabbits has resulted in having to find a virus to eliminate the species. Wild Dear has been radiated in the last five years, foxes are killing cattle in large prepositions wild horses in north and central Australia are been radiated. All these introduction have contributed to unstable the environment, from fauna to flora. The example you have given all are controlled by human beings, not really a relevant argument in your favor.

I'm not sure what you mean by radiated, whether you actually mean exposed to radiation or the word you're looking for is erradicated. I'm assuming by 'large prepositions' you mean large numbers. That was just to clarify what I think you mean so you understand what I'm assuming you mean when I answer.
All the animals you cited have been introduced in the last 200 years. Europeans introduced them. The idea of foxes killing cattle is not relevent to this discussion, because there is not a single naturally occuring ovine, bovine or porcine animal in this country. Your example of foxes is therefore one of an introduced population preying on another introduced population and has nothing to do with natural balance.
Just for the record, foxes do NOT kill large numbers of Australian cattle. They make a dint in the newborn lamb population every year, and they will kill and eat a sick or otherwise immobile larger animal, but as a general rule they will leave an upright cow alone. In a cow versus fox battle, the cow is 99.9% gauranteed to emerge the victor. Let's face it...you're talking about something the size of a small dog up against something with a live weight of 1.5 tonnes and a kick that can break a human knee.
Now, considering that all the species you mentioned were introduced at the same time by the incoming idiot European population,you're talking about an essentially concurrent introduction of ; a people with no regard for the natural environment who wanted to recreate the country they came from, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, chickens, goats, foxes, rabbits, domestic dogs and cats, European rats,European mice, European bees, introduced species of ducks and geese (we have our natural species of those), sparrows, blackbirds, Indian minah birds,trout,European carp...these are just the species I can think of off the top of my head. There hasn't been nearly enough time in the last 200 years for any sort of balance to even consider being achieved, especially considering the fact that the playing field is constantly in a state of flux.
Now, consider instead the Dingo. The dingo - although considered a native dog - was introduced by the aborigonals around 40,000 years ago. When they were introduced, there were still Thylacines (commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger) and Tasmanian Devils on Mainland Australia, as well as a species of large marsupial cat. (Lets assume the cat was on the way out already, as none even remain in Tassie.)
Now, 200 years ago when Europeans arrived, there were dingoes all over mainland Australia, and none in Tasmania. Conversely, what we now know as the Tasmanian Devil and Tiger were extinct where there were dingoes, and still thriving where there were no dingoes.
Essentially, there was the introduction of a large predator, which in a best case scenario could outbreed the native predators 16 offspring to 2 and fight them for their food. The dingo came to occupy that niche, and the existing predator died out. The balance was restored.
The difference between the introduction of the dingo and the introduction of the other species is that it was a single species that had 40,000 years to achieve a balance, as opposed to 10's of species that are all vying for a spot at the same time and have only had 200 years to try and get it all together. The birds have already achieved a balance of sorts...in areas of high human population density they have dispossessed many of the native species that previously occupied the area.
I do agree, however, that the Cane Toad is a very real concern...it kills everything that tries to eat it. Fortunately - or unfortunately, as the case may be - we're far more wary of introducing animals that eat other introduced pest animals, because it's jumping the gun on that that got us lumbered with the toads to begin with.

CMIYC · Sep 4, 2005

lady_lazarus said:
I'm not sure what you mean by radiated, whether you actually mean exposed to radiation or the word you're looking for is erradicated. I'm assuming by 'large prepositions' you mean large numbers. That was just to clarify what I think you mean so you understand what I'm assuming you mean when I answer.
All the animals you cited have been introduced in the last 200 years. Europeans introduced them. The idea of foxes killing cattle is not relevent to this discussion, because there is not a single naturally occuring ovine, bovine or porcine animal in this country. Your example of foxes is therefore one of an introduced population preying on another introduced population and has nothing to do with natural balance.
Just for the record, foxes do NOT kill large numbers of Australian cattle. They make a dint in the newborn lamb population every year, and they will kill and eat a sick or otherwise immobile larger animal, but as a general rule they will leave an upright cow alone. In a cow versus fox battle, the cow is 99.9% gauranteed to emerge the victor. Let's face it...you're talking about something the size of a small dog up against something with a live weight of 1.5 tonnes and a kick that can break a human knee.
Now, considering that all the species you mentioned were introduced at the same time by the incoming idiot European population,you're talking about an essentially concurrent introduction of ; a people with no regard for the natural environment who wanted to recreate the country they came from, sheep, cows, pigs, horses, chickens, goats, foxes, rabbits, domestic dogs and cats, European rats,European mice, European bees, introduced species of ducks and geese (we have our natural species of those), sparrows, blackbirds, Indian minah birds,trout,European carp...these are just the species I can think of off the top of my head. There hasn't been nearly enough time in the last 200 years for any sort of balance to even consider being achieved, especially considering the fact that the playing field is constantly in a state of flux.
Now, consider instead the Dingo. The dingo - although considered a native dog - was introduced by the aborigonals around 40,000 years ago. When they were introduced, there were still Thylacines (commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger) and Tasmanian Devils on Mainland Australia, as well as a species of large marsupial cat. (Lets assume the cat was on the way out already, as none even remain in Tassie.)
Now, 200 years ago when Europeans arrived, there were dingoes all over mainland Australia, and none in Tasmania. Conversely, what we now know as the Tasmanian Devil and Tiger were extinct where there were dingoes, and still thriving where there were no dingoes.
Essentially, there was the introduction of a large predator, which in a best case scenario could outbreed the native predators 16 offspring to 2 and fight them for their food. The dingo came to occupy that niche, and the existing predator died out. The balance was restored.
The difference between the introduction of the dingo and the introduction of the other species is that it was a single species that had 40,000 years to achieve a balance, as opposed to 10's of species that are all vying for a spot at the same time and have only had 200 years to try and get it all together. The birds have already achieved a balance of sorts...in areas of high human population density they have dispossessed many of the native species that previously occupied the area.
I do agree, however, that the Cane Toad is a very real concern...it kills everything that tries to eat it. Fortunately - or unfortunately, as the case may be - we're far more wary of introducing animals that eat other introduced pest animals, because it's jumping the gun on that that got us lumbered with the toads to begin with.

Sorry the word was eradicates and the foxes in Australia attack large animals like cattle. What they do is chew out the rear end of cows, eventually the cow dies. I have read the article recently, but for the life of me I cannot find it again. Im sure it will pop up again.
Here is a good article how micro evolution in fruit flies is evident. Just a short article from this site..
A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies. After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species. "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
Here is the rest of the site PLEASE ENJPY
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm#Mutation%20Research%20Project

Quoth The Raven · Sep 4, 2005

CMIYC said:
Sorry the word was eradicates and the foxes in Australia attack large animals like cattle. What they do is chew out the rear end of cows, eventually the cow dies. I have read the article recently, but for the life of me I cannot find it again. Im sure it will pop up again.
Here is a good article how micro evolution in fruit flies is evident. Just a short article from this site..
A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies. After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species. "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
Here is the rest of the site PLEASE ENJPY
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm#Mutation%20Research%20Project

Dude, I was raised on a farm in the dairy belt of Victoria and I have relatives with a sheep station in NSW...I can tell you from over 20 years of personal knowledge and experience - as well as the experience of others older in years than myself who have raised cows for generations - that foxes don't attack healthy, full grown, upright cattle. More likely to be feral dogs to do what you're describing.

JerryL · Sep 4, 2005

Im using different references including mythological, philosophical, biological, nuclear logical, astrological and any other sours I can jam logical behind it. Basically, Im cross-referencing other peoples hard work and putting it in a logical working order.

Some of these aren't even words. What data did you gather and how did you gather it (considering you've sworn-off books).

Really, same methods as you. If you can do it I can do it.

But my personal methods, whlie consistant with my position, would be antithetical to yours. Are you claiming that you are drawing data from other's reasearch (IOW: From books)?

my explanation to you would be to no avail, so I will point you in the right direction http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_9.htm see the problem even if it where possible for macro evolution, the evidence is still a speculation and most likely improbable.

Not good enough AV. Tell me what microevolution is and how it's different from macro-evolution. If at all possible, tell me from a DNA perspective.

Yes, I agree with you but the imbalance has occurred and most of the time on the expense of other species. Lets concentrate on one country Australia and the impact of such introductions. Introduction of rabbits has resulted in having to find a virus to eliminate the species.

I'll assume without looking that rabbits were introduced, and a problem, and they are introducing a vrius to kill the introduced rabbits.

They didn't *have* to. Left to their own, the rabbits would do what they do, have their effect, and a new balance would form.

That's because equilibrium has nothing to do with design.

The example you have given all are controlled by human beings, not really a relevant argument in your favor.

No they are not. The camel came to Australia the same as the rabbit or cane toad, which you cited.

Fatmop · Sep 4, 2005

OK. pick on my English! One as smart as yourself would have gathered by now, that English is my 2nd language. does that make me stupid because Im not of English decent?I think it might work the other way for not recognizing the obvious.

I did pick on your English. I did so primarily because you picked on Deut's choice of words as being 'of poor vocabulary.' You made fun of Deut's English, and weren't qualified to do so. Seems kind of silly to me. As to not understanding that you are not of English descent, that is a completely illogical argument. I used to post to forums and talk on AIM as a child, and had almost no grammatical or spelling skills whatsoever. Does that mean I am not of English (American) descent?

As to 'praying' to a test tube, that's not the right word choice either. Whenever a biologist or a cosmologist or astronomer is hoping to find life on other planets, it is not because they want to shove it in creationists' faces. That's just a nice little side bonus. Finding other life evolving on other planets would help add immensely to human knowledge: understanding more about abiogenesis, evolution, and genetics will have (and with regards to evolution and genetics, already has had) an enormous impact on medicine, among other things. Those of us who would hope to find life on other planets are not evil people trying to discard your notion of a god to replace it with sin - we are good, rational people trying to discard your notion of a god and replace it with reason.

As long as you never have the impulse to make fun of someone else's grammar or word choice, I will never see the need to rebuke you for your English again. Just recognize that you are not qualified to make fun of anyone else's speaking abilities. Deut CAN make long posts; he just doesn't most of the time.

CMIYC · Sep 4, 2005

Fatmop said:
I did pick on your English. I did so primarily because you picked on Deut's choice of words as being 'of poor vocabulary.' You made fun of Deut's English, and weren't qualified to do so. Seems kind of silly to me. As to not understanding that you are not of English descent, that is a completely illogical argument. I used to post to forums and talk on AIM as a child, and had almost no grammatical or spelling skills whatsoever. Does that mean I am not of English (American) descent?

As to 'praying' to a test tube, that's not the right word choice either. Whenever a biologist or a cosmologist or astronomer is hoping to find life on other planets, it is not because they want to shove it in creationists' faces. That's just a nice little side bonus. Finding other life evolving on other planets would help add immensely to human knowledge: understanding more about abiogenesis, evolution, and genetics will have (and with regards to evolution and genetics, already has had) an enormous impact on medicine, among other things. Those of us who would hope to find life on other planets are not evil people trying to discard your notion of a god to replace it with sin - we are good, rational people trying to discard your notion of a god and replace it with reason.

As long as you never have the impulse to make fun of someone else's grammar or word choice, I will never see the need to rebuke you for your English again. Just recognize that you are not qualified to make fun of anyone else's speaking abilities. Deut CAN make long posts; he just doesn't most of the time.

First of all everybody makes spelling mistakes, before referring to my child like spelling you should check your own (what is abiogenesis I tried to look it up in the dictionary sorry no such word) 2nd . I was complaining about Deut's lack of information as his answers only consisted of YES, and NO, he was never going to make a spelling error. Ditto.

JerryL · Sep 4, 2005

First of all everybody makes spelling mistakes, before referring to my child like spelling you should check your own (what is abiogenesis I tried to look it up in the dictionary sorry no such word) 2nd . I was complaining about Deut's lack of information as his answers only consisted of YES, and NO, he was never going to make a spelling error. Ditto.

Hrm. You seem interested in turning this into a thread about yourself. That's odd.

If you believe that you were erroniously cited as picking on deut for his English, feel free to discuss that (though I suppose this is the wrong place for that conversation in general).

If you feel Deut. offered vague responses, tell him it's vague and you want elaboration, or ask questions which can only be answered with verbosity.

Finally, abiogenesis is indeed a word:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abiogenesis

1. You need a new dictionary.
2. You should not pick on someone else's word choice without being *certain*
3. This is pointless.

CMIYC · Sep 4, 2005

JerryL said:
Some of these aren't even words. What data did you gather and how did you gather it (considering you've sworn-off books

Can you point me to the words that dont exist so I can correct them. Thanks

JerryL said:
But my personal methods, whlie consistant with my position, would be antithetical to yours. Are you claiming that you are drawing data from other's reasearch (IOW: From books)?

my position on this subject has always been consistent . NO LIFE WILL HAPPEN BY ITS SELF, IT HAS TO BE ENJUSCED. All the evidence you have provided so far is consistent with my belief

JerryL said:
Not good enough AV. Tell me what microevolution is and how it's different from macro-evolution. If at all possible, tell me from a DNA perspective.

All information is good enough you just do the side step to protect you beliefs, while ignoring all other evidence that might infringe upon you speculations.

JerryL said:
I'll assume without looking that rabbits were introduced, and a problem, and they are introducing a vrius to kill the introduced rabbits.

They didn't *have* to. Left to their own, the rabbits would do what they do, have their effect, and a new balance would form.

That's because equilibrium has nothing to do with design.

*** that is assumption not fact.***

JerryL said:
No they are not. The camel came to Australia the same as the rabbit or cane toad, which you cited.

Another wrong assumption, will you start using logic for a change. Domesticated animals are just that, they are maintained under human supervision.

JerryL · Sep 4, 2005

Can you point me to the words that dont exist so I can correct them. Thanks

"Nuclear logical"

my position on this subject has always been consistent . NO LIFE WILL HAPPEN BY ITS SELF, IT HAS TO BE ENJUSCED. All the evidence you have provided so far is consistent with my belief

Wrong belief. I'm referring to:

And as for biology I think you all should acquire knowledge yourselves before making observed claims.

Evidence is not in the books alone, it is also threw observation. CMIYC post 102

Your position on the matter appears to be that one should draw from one's own observations, not from data collected by others. Hypocritically, you are not using your own observations, you are referring to data collected by others. I think that's a fine way to garner datum, but you have asserted otherwise.

All information is good enough you just do the side step to protect you beliefs, while ignoring all other evidence that might infringe upon you speculations.

Speaking of side-stepping, you have not answered the question. I'll repeat it for you:

Tell me what microevolution is and how it's different from macro-evolution. If at all possible, tell me from a DNA perspective.

*** that is assumption not fact.***

I can give a dozen examples of it happening in the same land. Dingos, sheep, camels, etc.

Another wrong assumption, will you start using logic for a change.

That doesn't even make sense. Assumptions are "assumption of fact", logic is a tool which derives conclusions from presupposed or preestablished fact. A factual error and a logical error would be two distinct things.

Domesticated animals are just that, they are maintained under human supervision.

I'm not referring to domestic camels. I'm referring to the thousands of wild camels which were introduced. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=wild+camels+australia&spell=1)

When someone makes a factual claim, particularly me, I'd recommend that you at least bother to type it into a google search before asserting it to be false.

Quoth The Raven · Sep 5, 2005

Rabbits were introduced and are a problem. They will eventually get to some sort of equilibrium when left to their own devices, but largely at the expense of the native macropods (like the dingo and the native predators, which I have already cited as a case where balance has been reached), and eventually to the detriment of vast expanses of grassland that will not be able to restore itself for a very long time if at all. Biological means are not the only way of dealing with ferral rabbits...10/80 baits are also widely used, as is hunting. Unfortunately there's not enough hunting these days, and baits are non discriminatory.

CMIYC said:
Another wrong assumption, will you start using logic for a change. Domesticated animals are just that, they are maintained under human supervision.

Yes, domestic animals are maintained under human supervision, however feral animals are previously domesticated animals that have turned wild. The Australian camels are feral, as are the wild pigs and goats. There are also feral dog and cat populations and feral water buffalo. The Brumby's are also feral, however they've become something of an Australian icon and so there's some attempts to at least maintain a population, albeit in captivity.

Fatmop · Sep 5, 2005

NO LIFE WILL HAPPEN BY ITS SELF, IT HAS TO BE ENJUSCED. All the evidence you have provided so far is consistent with my belief [...] will you start using logic for a change.

Your belief, that life can not happen by itself, is based on your interpretation of the Bible, no? You are under the erroneous assumption that the Bible is infallible and everything in the world must fit within scriptures. By assuming this fact, then trying to make all evidence point toward it, you are using circular reasoning - which is not logical. Everyone arguing against you has had valid, logical arguments most of the time - you're the one who is arguing from ignorance then claiming that anyone who disagrees is irrational.

For the sake of friendliness, I'm sorry I made fun of your linguistic skills. I hope this doesn't damage our friendship irrevocably.

Mars vs evolution

Fatmop

Active Member

CMIYC

Member

JerryL

Well-Known Member

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member

CMIYC

Member

CMIYC

Member

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse

CMIYC

Member

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse

JerryL

Well-Known Member

Fatmop

Active Member

CMIYC

Member

JerryL

Well-Known Member

CMIYC

Member

JerryL

Well-Known Member

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse

Fatmop

Active Member