The evidence only proves that you failed. You failed to stimulate macro-evolution. Can it be stimulated?
From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:48:18 +0800 Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo: > Well, science is supposed to be "observable" and "repeatable". That implies > a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's > not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered garbage. But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking “science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends to play out over an eternity of time. ;-) What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today? http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
