We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the 
offspring is a new "species", but I don't think that is a valid argument.  We 
see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed 
that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human.  Failure to mate and 
reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution 
event.

I do not believe  this reproduction criteria is valid.


Jojo


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where 
a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share 
genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members.

  My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that 
they can still breed together.  I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise.

  Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two 
different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about).

  I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate 
among themselves but do not bear young as a result.  I do not keep up with such 
statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and 
can enlighten us.  If these different mating species have the same number of 
chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species.  At least 
this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it 
can be found.

  Dave







  -----Original Message-----
  From: Sunil Shah <[email protected]>
  To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
  Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  I really don't know if "new diseases" counts as an example of evolution to 
you,
  but a quick search came up with this
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/

  A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm

  I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it
  carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!)

  But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading 
"species"
  (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the "new diseases" 
suggestion.

  /Sunil




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: [email protected]
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
  Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800


  Baloney, if you "know" the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of 
books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example.

  Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one 
species change into another.  JUST ONE...



  Jojo


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jed Rothwell 
    To: [email protected] 
    Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM
    Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


    Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote:


      To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here:

      I have a simple question:

      1.  What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? 


    There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian 
evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like 
questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease.


    I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this 
level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and 
micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious 
creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic 
deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just 
as a trick to fool us.


    If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't 
annoy people who know the subject.


    I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have 
learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about 
evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to 
educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of 
thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no 
chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain 
it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. 
Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or 
wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out!


    - Jed

Reply via email to