Jojo says "Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event." Oh is that why your not getting any? Hahaha.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > *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 > >
