This is how I know I am winning the argument. When people resort to mockery and insults.
But, my friend, have at it. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots 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 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
