From: dene on

"Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)> wrote in message

> >Is there a record of any successful mutations, alive and able to
> >today?
> You may have missed it, but a lot of medications have become
> ineffective because the bacteria or viruses they were used against
> developed resistance against the drugs, rendering them less effective
> or even useless. Those bacteria and viruses reproduce today.

Ok....but do you have any examples a little higher up the chain.

> You may have missed the mutations among humans that produced different
> hair and skin color, different amounts of hair, different skull and
> facial features during the last 100 millennia or less (mutations
> within species). Last I heard humans were alive and reproducing
> around the world.

Key word is "mutations within a species." No argument from me.

> You may have missed Darwin's seminal work on how different species or
> subspecies of finches evolved on some Chilean islands. Last time
> anybody visited the islands the finches were still there, and still
> different on different islands.

Again...mutations within a species.

> It's already been pointed out to you how many species there are even
> on the hominid tree alone. And I've already argued that we simply
> have no idea how many species there may have been over the eons or
> what proportion of them left fossils that have been discovered and
> described, so we can't know how abundant they should be.

But do you have any idea what hominids were prior to the two legged
versions? There should be a snapshot in the fossil record. It's not like
the mutated species was around for 50 years, then disappeared. There should
be more fossils of them than there are of the species it evolved to.

> >> And astrophysicists are making truly astounding discoveries about the
> >> events of the last 13.75 �0.17 billion years, ranging from the
> >> unimaginably small to the biggest bang of them all.
> >
> >I have no problem accepting the idea of an ancient earth and even more
> >ancient universe. Perhaps, by design, it was born out of an explosion.
> Perhaps, but it's only speculation. The fact of the explosion and the
> resultant universes seems to be pretty well supported.

For now....


From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-EFE60F.20312702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, wclark2(a) says...
> OK, then let us discuss the Penrose-Hawking singularity, and its
> implications for the origins of the universe.
> Go ahead, after you.

There are quite a few assumptions in thos theroms and some conditions
too. I don't see a single answer for the cause of the Big Bang.
From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-41C9D5.20415302082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, wclark2(a) says...
> > Regardless....there are a plethora of species who are captured in time via
> > the fossil record. But why are there few, if any, mutated transitional
> > species. You know...Ape to Baker mutations, or better yet, ?? to ape to
> > Baker. Shouldn't these mutated, transitional species far outweigh existing
> > species?
> >
> > -Greg
> That is what was said about the transition of fish to amphibians. Then,
> guess what, in 2004 they found Tiktaalik Rosae, a classic example of a
> transitional form, that fitted right in the middle. Oops.

"that fitted right in the middle?"
From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-CF6929.20560102082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, wclark2(a) says...
> >
> > Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life resulting
> > from the right mix of
> >
> > -Greg
> You haven't read much about the Big Bang you are so fond of referring
> to, have you? It originates from a universe that is infinitely dense and
> infinitely hot - conditions that no one can reproduce on earth today.
> Except, probably, your favorite old man with the long white beard.

Where did the infinitely dense and infinitely hot come from?

So far we have gone from the dealership to the manufacturer. Wher did
the raw materials that the manufacturer use come from?
From: Howard Brazee on
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:14:24 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)>

>I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to illustrate
>that the former requires more faith than those who believe in pig guts and
>astrology. Duh.

What makes you think that? People who believe the latter claim they
have faith. People who believe the former don't make that claim.

>Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and development
>of life.

Such a wild claim really could use some supporting arguments. Millions
believe Brahma created the universe. But I haven't read of any
reasoned arguments supporting their belief.

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?