Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Read, THEN post. You might have to read past page 1.



They developed a new organ and wiped out the other species population within a period of like 30 years.

Here's an explanation about the differences between macro and microevolution:
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

I think you're reading into that a little. I read that as the new species..ie the species that was introduced, wiped out the others.

 

[Soggy]

Okay. This one will take awhile to digest but I could also point to several creationist sites which also offer up adecdotal evidences to the contrary.

I challenge you to find one that is reputable and holds up to scientific scrutiny. Several people have tried, all have failed.

 

[Soggy]

I think you're reading into that a little. I read that as the new
species..ie the species that was introduced, wiped out the others.

Here's an abstract of the original study if you want to read it for yourself.

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource -- Herrel et al. 105 (12): 4792 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

I found a copy of the PDF
http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publications/Herrel et al 2008 PNAS.pdf

I haven't read it yet. I may be mistaken that it was classified as a separate species. It did, however, grow a completely new digestive organ within a period of 36 years.

 

[waytooslow]

http://agradevaduta.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/atheism11.gif

 

[gary-ramey]

I challenge you to find one that is reputable and holds up to scientific scrutiny. Several people have tried, all have failed.

Really...you mean like Brontosaurus? Javaman? Unethical "scientists" have littered science with as much doubt as tele-evangelists have done for Christianity. Unfortunately the web only further propagates bad information.

BTW, the article had nothing about a new "organ" only a different "gut structure". Again, Micro-evolution is not in dispute here.

 

[gary-ramey]

Here's an abstract of the original study if you want to read it for yourself.

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource -- Herrel et al. 105 (12): 4792 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

I found a copy of the PDF
http://webhost.ua.ac.be/funmorph/publications/Herrel et al 2008 PNAS.pdf

I haven't read it yet. I may be mistaken that it was classified as a separate species. It did, however, grow a completely new digestive organ within a period of 36 years.

Where is this going? We've already established the microevolutionary changes in the lizard. There's also been rapid changes documented in the Galapagos Finches. Nothing earth shaking here.

 

[AXL72]

This just in....The earth is flat....not round


Those damn scientists and their scientific BS trying to convince us all that the world is round and other nonsense of the like....lmao



Those creationists from ages ago were right on everything, especially about the flat earth

 

[Soggy]

Where is this going? We've already established the microevolutionary changes in the lizard. There's also been rapid changes documented in the Galapagos Finches. Nothing earth shaking here.

I'm not sure why you can't grasp the concept. Read the micro/macro link and the one about macroevolution and the scientific support via genetics, fossils, etc. Warthaug linked to something way back in the thread, too that had an excellent explanation regarding flies that had evolved into a new species of fly.

 

[gary-ramey]

I think evolution leaves huge gaps in understanding origins of life and behavior. Take for instance the Plover and the Crocodile and their symbiotic relationship. You can extend this to the ocean and the many symbiotic relationships that exist there. Scientists are fond of quoting things like the articulated jaw structure of the cynodonts but then stumble when confronted with things observed or known in the world that don't support evolution. Take DNA for example. Genetically programmed to do what it was designed to do. You and I type on a computer program with less complexity than a single strand of DNA yet neither of us would even ponder that the computer program was generated randomly.

 

[Soggy]

Really...you mean like Brontosaurus? Javaman? Unethical "scientists" have littered science with as much doubt as tele-evangelists have done for Christianity. Unfortunately the web only further propagates bad information.

Huh? You mean the brontosaurus that attempted to recreate (for a museum) using bones from another closely related dinosaur? I don't recall anything in that story about that being concealed from the scientific community.

I'm not sure what you are implying about Javaman, though.