Users Online Now:
1,883
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
648,619
Pageviews Today:
1,096,275
Threads Today:
405
Posts Today:
7,416
12:30 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Evolution was not proven true...until THIS.......I am SUCH the believer now- and you??
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Instant Karma:MV8yMTQxNTU1XzM2MTc1NTM1X0IxOTUyQzY2] [quote:Anonymous Coward 2913820:MV8yMTQxNTU1XzM2MTY0MzAyXzg1OEREODYx] evolution is real. we can literately bread out species until they cant copulate. that's the definition of species. ability to have sex and have offspring in succession we can bread out moths far beyond that point for traits until they are literately classed a new species and unable to copulate with the original species [/quote] But the moths will never be anything but moths. It's just semantics. You can call them another species and claim a hollow victory for evolution, but they are still moths. Same with birds. It is just genetic variation, combining the genes that are already in the gene pool. No new genes or organs or functions or abilities. Darwin observed this type of genetic "evolution" but incorrectly made the leap that one type could evolve into another. That a lizard could become a bird, or a snake could become a lizard, or a fish could become a frog. That type of evolution has never been observed. The fossils don't even support it. The fossils show distinct types, no transitional forms. According to Darwin's theory there should be [b]more[/b] transitional forms than distinct types. There should be [b]living[/b] transitional forms as well. Just the opposite is the case. He admitted that the absence of transitional forms in the fossils would disprove his theory. [/quote]
Original Message
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>