You are incorrect about the point that you need something to kill off all those who do not have the ability. It is only necessary to develop a threshold population of those who do have that ability... although, technically, these will only become a different species when they have diverged to the point that they no longer interbreed with the first.
Andy McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "those running fast will remain the same species forever." Not necessarily, since some may move into a forest, and then be selected for climbing ability, and if the 2 groups don't interbreed for a long time they will then become 2 separate species. Breeding selection is another factor. I saw a study into diversification of fish in a young lake. They discovered a species that had split into 2 groups that didn't interbreed because in one group the females preferred males with red tails, and in the other group; yellow tails. So they were at the stage where they appeared to be different species while still almost identical genetically. "Does the Theory of evolution predict that men who > have for thousands of years dived below the waters of the Persian Gulf to > collect pearls, will eventually develop organs to breath underwater? " No. You would have to have some humans that naturally have that ability, combined with something that kills everyone else who don't have that ability, and neither of those things are likely. Humans do have more ability in water than most apes - so it does look likely that being able to swim was a life-saving talent at some point in our past. "If evolution is a theory, what are its predictions?" It predicts that species will tend to change over time; due to the pressure of an otherwise early death in a hostile environment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kamran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: RE: [PNEWS-L] creationism vs evolution (random this natural that!!) > This is a good snap shot picture and I don't doubt that at any point in time > there are winners and losers among various species and this is partly why > over 90% of all known species in the history of life have become extinct, > although the dominant majority have gone extinct to natural events like a > major asteroid strike. > > > > The key point is that those running fast will remain the same species > forever. Theory of evolution cannot predict that the DNA of an existing > species will accumulate additional information and become a different DNA > over time. "Evolution" is probably the only "scientific" theory that has > achieved the status of a theory while it has never passed the point of being > a mere observation. Let's say Hyenas are the master of their nature and can > dominate their pray and survive their enemies, according to the theory of > evolution what is going to become of Hyenas? Why has the human brain been > the same for tens of thousands of years, or let's say nearly 100 thousand > years, while the utility of our brain today is immensely greater than > thousands of years ago. What gave the evolutionary process such foresight > to develop a physical/analytical tool that was so underutilized in the past > and probably is today. Does the Theory of evolution predict that men who > have for thousands of years dived below the waters of the Persian Gulf to > collect pearls, will eventually develop organs to breath underwater? Or will > the dolphins and whales eventually be able to breathe underwater and not > have to surface for oxygen? Is it an advantage for whales and dolphins to > have to surface for oxygen? > > > > If evolution is a theory, what are its predictions? And have any of these > predictions ever been tested and produced results that remotely correspond > to the claims made by evolutionists? > > > > Kamran > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andy McCracken > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 7:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] creationism vs evolution (random this natural that!!) > > > > Natural selection does not arise much from mutations but from the normal > variability within a species. > If survival depends on running fast, the fastest runners are the ones who > will breed most successfully, and the slower ones will die out. > This doesn't involve any mutations. > > http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526154.900-for-trilobites-varie > ty-really-was-the-spice-of-life.html > For trilobites, variety really was the spice of life > a.. 04 August 2007 > b.. NewScientist.com news service > c.. Colin Barras > IT MAY be possible to predict the winners and losers ahead of a mass > extinction - those species with the greatest variability in their appearance > should be most likely to survive. > Mark Webster at the University of Chicago has shown that trilobites, an > extinct group of marine arthropods, evolved most rapidly when individuals > within a species had bodies that varied in size, shape or number of body > segments. When this variation fell away so did the rate of evolution, which > may have left the animals more susceptible to extinction by climate change. > > Webster reviewed a large number of earlier trilobite studies. These showed > that 70 per cent of the earliest trilobite species, which emerged around 520 > million years ago during the Cambrian period, had highly variable bodies. > After the Cambrian, that number dropped to 30 per cent and remained so for > most of the next 250 million years, until the trilobites died out in the > Permian (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1142964). > > The decline in variation within a species coincided with a fall in the rate > at which new trilobite species appeared. "It's been known for a long time > that Cambrian trilobites evolved quicker than at other times," says Webster, > but his study is the first to show a clear link between the rate of > evolution and variation within species. "Cambrian species were throwing more > variation out there for natural selection to operate on. So potentially you > can see how a species could evolve quicker," Webster says. > > He suggests that within-species variation declined after the Cambrian > because most species of trilobites had evolved to exploit particular niches > or lifestyles. This would have made any variation from the optimal body form > less competitive, constraining patterns of growth and development. > > But there is an evolutionary trade-off: a species that is too specialised > may no longer be able adapt to new conditions, becoming more likely to > perish during periods of rapid environmental change. "It's possible that > lineages could become so channelled in their development that they're > walking down a one-way street that they can't back out of," Webster says. > > >From issue 2615 of New Scientist magazine, 04 August 2007, page 15 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kamran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:forkamran%40yahoo.com> > > To: <[email protected] <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 3:31 PM > Subject: RE: [PNEWS-L] creationism vs evolution (random this natural that!!) > > > "Mutations are random but natural selection isn't!" Sounds familiar? So > > this is how evolution is happening; really??? OK, let's see. > > > > > > > > Mutation are said to happen in the process of DNA replication, so when > there > > was no DNA to begin with, who knows what was mutating and what nature was > > selecting from, but let's not go there for now! Let's play the game a > little > > downstream. > > > > > > > > In the process of cell replication, DNA's are also replicated and once in > > every blue moon there may be a POINT ERROR, in the DNA replication which > is > > essentially an accident or damage. What is nature going to select from > this > > point error, when in reality any "evolutionary variation" would require > huge > > volumes of configured information. In addition nature selects from the > > outside while the point errors in the DNA replication (which, again, are > > EXTREMELY rare) happen at the genetic level (genotypes) and none of the > > observed accidents could even be manifested as an external feature > > (phenotype) for nature to select from. In other words nature might give a > > bull with a horn on the forehead more of a chance than a bull with a horn > on > > its back but this variance in the position of the horn (which by the way > has > > never been seen in the fossil record) requires huge amount of information > > variance at the genetic level. > > > > > > > > There are a hundred trillions of cells in human body. No one has ever > > observed any "mutation," that is claimed by evolutionists, in their > constant > > replication. Of course normal cells don't even play a role in the > > reproductive process and it is the stem cells that are active in the > > reproductive process and no scientific observation has been made that once > > these stem cells begin to build an offspring, in some miraculous way their > > DNA begins to replicate itself while not producing an exact copy of the > > parent DNA. > > > > > > > > No one knows what evolutionists are talking about, and the bizarre thing > is > > that they don't know what they are talking about either otherwise they > would > > show what they mean by a "random mutation" and produce an experimental > > result for it. > > > > > > > > Such is the sad story of evolution. It's like a lie whose proponents keep > > making it bigger in an attempt to eventually pass it as truth!!!! > > > > > > > > Once this becomes clear we can discuss the nature of evidence for > Creation. > > Otherwise evolutionists who care less that there is ZERO evidence or even > > any grounds for plausible arguments in favor of "evolution," would > certainly > > disregards evidence and arguments for Creation no matter how indisputable. > > To me, an evolutionist must first admit (like I did once) that his/her > > belief in evolution has zero scientific or reasonable support before > he/she > > would be qualified to hear and make progress on the evidence and arguments > > for Creation. And by the way none of this evidence and arguments for > > creation is going to come out of a religious book; rather it is going to > > come out of rational inference of scientific facts. > > > > > > > > Kamran > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf > Of > > Lindy Greene > > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:42 PM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] creationism vs evolution > > > > > > > > Creationism - How can anyone with any education believe that poppycock? > I'll > > have plenty to say later - LOL. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: adar > > To: [email protected] <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> > <mailto:PNEWS-L%40yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:43 AM > > Subject: [PNEWS-L] creationism vs evolution > > > > There is absolutely no evidence that life was instantaneously created out > of > > > > nothing, either 10,000 years ago or 3.5 billion years ago. If there were > > even > > the tiniest scrap of evidence supporting creationism, I myself would > publish > > > > such information in a leading scientific journal, and as a consequence I > > would > > instantly become the most famous person (and probably the richest) in the > > history of science. I encourage creationists to do the same. So in > response > > to > > the Tribune editor who wonders why evolutionists are "exclusive about > their > > faith," I can only ask, exactly what line of evidence for creationism > should > > we > > present in science class? > > > > In contrast, we can and do fill libraries with evidence supporting > > evolution. > > Separate lines of evidence from population genetics, developmental > biology, > > systematics, paleontology, biogeography, and other fields all point to the > > same > > inescapable conclusion that life has been evolving on Earth for more than > 3 > > billion years (the oldest fossils, of bacteria, are at least that old). > > > > Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is one of the best-demonstrated > facts > > in > > all of science. One cannot publish a paper with the title "New Evidence > for > > Evolution" for the same reason that one cannot publish "new" evidence that > > the > > Earth revolves around the sun; the issue has been settled within science > for > > > > over a century. Of course, creationists argue that this is a result of > > massive > > self-delusion or a worldwide conspiracy among scientists, but most of us > > don't > > consider ourselves inherently delusional or conspiratorial (see the > > fame-and-fortune scenario described above). Because there are armies of > > molecular and physical anthropologists out there, we are now getting an > > especially detailed picture of evolution in the lineage that led to Homo > > sapiens. > > > > Continued: > > > > http://pnews.org/ArT/HuM/CrE.shtml > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Progressive News/Views (since 1982) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Progressive News/Views (since 1982) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
