3
   

Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

 
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "Tracing DNA is not evidence of Evolution. It is evidence of variation within humans. This does not explain how the DNA or RNA came to be." What is proves is the fact that all of us have a common ancestry from Africa. Why some of us ended up with green eyes and white skin proves that evolution has taken place. Most of the changes were necessary for survival in the different climates and environment.


Variation within humanity is NOT evolution. Evolutionary teaching insists that evolution is a mechanism which produces trans-speciation.

I'm still waiting for the mechanism that demonstrates trans-speciation, not variation within a species - herein lies the confusion and rabid propaganda that certain "evolutionists" are keen to spread but are deliberate in not presenting the important difference.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 03:54 pm
Do you mean to claim that all variations of fauna and flora is not evolution?
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 04:07 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Do you mean to claim that all variations of fauna and flora is not evolution?


Variation within each type is only evidence of adaptation, not evolution. For, each species type still remains of the same type - it doesn't evolve into some new species, i.e. trans-speciation. If it began its life as a plant then it will remain a plant - albeit it may change in colour , texture etc, but it is still a plant. This distinction is very important.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 04:50 pm
Oh, I see! We can't change a plant into humans. LOL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 06:36 pm
but we can change a dire wolf into a grey wolf.

Or an eohippus into an equus.

or an Icterus spurius into an Icterus galbula

maybe a Phacops raana into a terataspis grandis

howbout
a protoceratops into a triceratops

how bout speciation into trans-speciaation (ill bet Bib made that up)

sorry I dont have to leave till next Tuesday now so I can be a continued PITA with Bib
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 06:43 pm
Hey, bib, you'd better educate these anthropologists that human evolution doesn't exist. They're waiting to hear from you. http://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/dir00.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 06:48 pm
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 06:48 pm
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 07:03 pm
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&CMD=SALL+%22anthropology+prehistoric%22&CNT=25+records+per+page
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 07:04 pm
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&CMD=SALL+%22anthropology+prehistoric%22&CNT=25+records+per+page
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2005 09:55 pm
Seems to me that bib needs to contact all the current anthropoligists at all the major universities to tell them their search for human evolution is a dead end and meaningless.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 06:38 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Oh, I see! We can't change a plant into humans. LOL


You are right to laugh, and I'll laugh with you. But your summation is precisely what some "Evolutionists" believe, publish and teach!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 06:39 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Seems to me that bib needs to contact all the current anthropoligists at all the major universities to tell them their search for human evolution is a dead end and meaningless.


When you say "human evolution" are you referring to variation within the human type or transformation from an earlier hominid type, i.e. primates?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 10:47 am
Precisely!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Precisely!


Precisely what?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 02:53 pm
whats on second
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:08 pm
Who's on first?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:18 pm
yes who IS on first
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:25 pm
The words to the Abbott and Costello sketch can be found here: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 03:42 pm
The problem is, bib, I've been around the base a hundred times already, and I've not been able to score any answer from you - nor has anybody else asking you questions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/08/2025 at 08:39:10