Evolution? How?

Hmmm....Rex is the expert on god and religion. It's unfortunate that he sees only one side of what religion really represents in this world. He fails to see the destruction, murder, and division created by it.

Rex wrote:
I said I understood the spirit more..

By this very statement, you are saying you are an expert on your god and religion. You "understand" something many of us can't understand. For us, there is no proof of "spirit." That you understand the spirit shows you are an "expert."

Lightwizard wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

In making that statement and many others, RL is proving that he is entirely subjective -- objectivism is foreign to him and therefore he doesn't know how to discern between the two. He has the makings of a bad politician.

Purposefully ignoring God does not make one politically sound either...

A ridiculous statement -- another non-sequitur which RL has seeming thinks he can pass off like it actually means anything.

It's the devise of someone totally bereft in creative writing skills to end a sentence with "..." In any university, that would get you can F on the any paper.

You have probably entertained the idea but I am not RL.

I have profound respect for RL because he too is a brother of Christ...

RexRed wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

RexRed wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

In making that statement and many others, RL is proving that he is entirely subjective -- objectivism is foreign to him and therefore he doesn't know how to discern between the two. He has the makings of a bad politician.

Purposefully ignoring God does not make one politically sound either...

A ridiculous statement -- another non-sequitur which RL has seeming thinks he can pass off like it actually means anything.

It's the devise of someone totally bereft in creative writing skills to end a sentence with "..." In any university, that would get you can F on the any paper.

You have probably entertained the idea but I am not RL.

I have profound respect for RL because he too is a brother of Christ...

Oh, come on, RR and RL are the same person. Schizophrenia seems to run in your family?

My days home ended today . You boys have been busy stoning each other. Cant we just get along and agree to disagree?

RL, if youd go back, I dont think that an issue of "interbreeding " was an issue . The genetic variation in the foundation species of polar bears was in the Brown bear, a big grizzly. Having end members of a species exist doesnt negate evolution, it actually supports it. Here was a bear , a single bear whose genetic makeup and some of its features were both polar and grizzly. Was there a population of similar hybrids around? or was it, as was suspected a genetic remnant?

Fossils of polar bears do exist, enough , so that the development of the Roman features of the polar bears snout, its paws, its ears, its dentition are all catalogues in he fossil record(just not a lot of them)
Now that the ice is melting, Ive posited that there may be an impending extinction for polar bears unless we can keep the "rootstock" viable in grizzlies or brownies.

I think the discovery of this fella was neat, a "living intermediate"

And it's an on-going process...

http://www.search.com/reference/bear
Occasionally, barren-ground grizzlies are found hunting seals on the sea ice north of the Canadian mainland. The barren-ground grizzlies appear to be brown bear/ polar bear crosses, and could represent an intergrade form...........

Oh, and as for the polar bear stuff - you make no point and again imply something which is not true; I never said it couldn't happen, in fact I acknowledged it had been done experimentally. I was, and I am still of, the opinion held by the naturalists quoted in your cited article; not impossible, but improbable, and like those naturalists, I am somewhat bemused at the circumstance, having no reason to expect it, but not at all amazed.

Now, that's really interesting - seems to indicate at least the possibility some current in-the-wild hybridization. Sorta surprising to me, that

Perhaps there's a bit less to "The Controversy" than some might have you believe. It would appear, by the evidence shown on GoogleTrends, that far more folks are interested in learning about evolution than in pursuing ID-iocy. Of note is that the frequency of Google-linked news articles pertaining to evolution has been steady to slightly up-trending, while ID-iocy-centric news articles run a poor second both overall and by trend, showing only mometary spikes centered on headline events (none of which have turned out well for the ID-iocy camp) befiore returning to essentially baseline frequency, a graph performance mirrored in the overall search requests graph.



While The US appears to be the focal point of ID-iocy searches, the UK is the leader in Evolution searches, with Australia, India, Canada, Belgium, the and The USA in that order making up the top 6.

There's nothing that can challenge science. IDiots try, but they've been losing their court fights 100 percent; must tell you something. Think evidence. LOL

basic tenets of the concept of evolution and how does understanding evolution play an essential role in comprehending science, and in particular, modern biology

All biologists realize that evolution is an ongoing phenomenon proved almost daily by their knowledge of chemistry. Bacteria continues to evolve into different strains based on their need to "survive." Any biologist that doesn't accept evolution is wasting their time in the field.

Perhaps it simply indicates that many evolutionists do not wish to challenge their beliefs by hearing an alternate view.

Any biologist that doesn't accept evolution is wasting their time in the field...........

That people worked in the field of chemistry and biology before Darwin's time doesn't negate their study and findings.........