@ agentofAllah ... why didnt this evolve after such a long time ?

winner01:



Exactly, the expected reaction.
Just cut the crap and provide examples of one distinct specie changing to another. 40,000 generations was not even enough to DELIBERATELY/CONSCIOUSLY change one specie of bacteria to another distinct specie. It becomes funny how you then try to downplay the impossibility of BLIND/UNGUIDED process to change one specie into another under the guise of time.

1) Define species
2) Tell me exactly why and how you reckon "adaptation" happens?

What has been OBSERVED in reality are the coelacanth, the horseshoe crab, the caddisflies, the trilobite and other embarrassments to evolution which have each lived for not less than 200 millions years and have been thought to be extint millions of years ago until re-discovered. Normally, they have retained their wonderful features and have disgraced evolutionists.

Okay, this is a loaded statement, so let's get systematic about it. Could you clarify how the existence of the creatures you've mentioned falsify the theory of evolution

P.S. Trilobites really are extinct, as far as we know. But if you've discovered any living one yourself, then you're walking on a terrific goldmine, my friend.

There is no point wasting anyones time, when evolutionists actually OBSERVE one specie changing into another distinct specie and not rely on blind faith that macro-evolution must be true, then you can continue with your pro-evolution epistles.

You accept "micro-evolution", I presume. So what are the limits of micro-evolution, and how can these limits be tested scientifically? Thanks

KingEbukasBlog:
@ agentofAllah ... why didnt this evolve after such a long time ?

Let me explain how evolution works differently, so that you might understand this a little better: Evolution is a function, not of time, but of events in time. It is very helpful to think of evolution as a destructive force than a creative one. Evolution is a lion pursuing a herd of antelopes. The surviving antelopes do not need to be faster than the lion to survive, they just need to be faster than other antelopes. The surviving antelopes will then reproduce and have on average, faster offspring than previous generations. This increases ever so slightly, the lion's next effort to get an antelope on its dinner menu. You see, the lion has inadvertently created faster antelopes, not because it wanted to, but because it killed off the genes of the slower ones. This is basically how evolution works.
If antibiotics weren't discovered, there would be no need for bacteria to evolve into more resistant species, even after a million years, provided all other conditions remained the same. The malignant irony is that our quest to eliminate bacteria has enabled us create monster bacteria (a sort of balance restoration, if you like).
Put simply, if the changing conditions of the environment do not threaten the existence of any population, they have no reason to evolve. In fact, a population that is threatened by changing conditions is more likely to extinct than evolve. Only on infinitesimally rare occasions (we're talking much less than 1%), when a favourable mutation occurs, does evolution happen. Again, this is why 99.9% of all species are extinct. Also explains why species are extincting faster today, than ever before! Humans have made sudden drastic changes to the environment that many existing species cannot cope with. Yankari used to have hundreds of lions at some point in the past. Today, it is estimated that only 5 Lions exist here. In the next 50-100 years, perhaps, lions will probably extinct completely in Nigeria because they cannot cope. The situation is just as precarious in other parts of West Africa.
On the other hand, some worm species in Chernobyl are increasingly changing their sexual habit (by becoming less asexual), possibly because sexually dimorphic organisms have more robust gene pool that enhances resistance to radioactivity than asexual ones.

AgentOfAllah:


Let me explain how evolution works differently, so that you might understand this a little better: Evolution is a function, not of time, but of events in time. It is very helpful to think of evolution as a destructive force than a creative one. Evolution is a lion pursuing a herd of antelopes. The surviving antelopes do not need to be faster than the lion to survive, they just need to be faster than other antelopes. The surviving antelopes will then reproduce and have on average, faster offspring than previous generations. This increases ever so slightly, the lion's next effort to get an antelope on its dinner menu. You see, the lion has inadvertently created faster antelopes, not because it wanted to, but because it killed off the genes of the slower ones. This is basically how evolution works.
If antibiotics weren't discovered, there would be no need for bacteria to evolve into more resistant species, even after a million years, provided all other conditions remained the same. The malignant irony is that our quest to eliminate bacteria has enabled us create monster bacteria (a sort of balance restoration, if you like).
Put simply, if the changing conditions of the environment do not threaten the existence of any population, they have no reason to evolve. In fact, a population that is threatened by changing conditions is more likely to extinct than evolve. Only on infinitesimally rare occasions (we're talking much less than 1%), when a favourable mutation occurs, does evolution happen. Again, this is why 99.9% of all species are extinct. Also explains why species are extincting faster today, than ever before! Humans have made sudden drastic changes to the environment that many existing species cannot cope with. Yankari used to have hundreds of lions at some point in the past. Today, it is estimated that only 5 Lions exist here. In the next 50-100 years, perhaps, lions will probably extinct completely in Nigeria because they cannot cope. The situation is just as precarious in other parts of West Africa.
On the other hand, some worm species in Chernobyl are increasingly changing their sexual habit (by becoming less asexual), possibly because sexually dimorphic organisms have more robust gene pool that enhances resistance to radioactivity than asexual ones.

ok ... one question : Do adaptation and speciation have anything to do with evolution

KingEbukasBlog:


ok ... one question : Do adaptation and speciation have anything to do with evolution

It goes without saying that the subgroup within a population of organisms which is better adapted to the environment than the rest of the population is the subgroup that is going to eventually outpopulate the remaining. This is irrespective of how that advantage was acquired in the first place. Now, given that the environment is ever changing, it stands to reason that new advantageous adaptations will help a subgroup within the subgroup outpopulate the rest again. This process continues in a cascaded series of events, so that at any given time, when an observer wishes to observe the latest population, they will not just be observing the original species, but a variant of it, with cumulative adaptations that make it apparently distinct from the original species. So, adaptation is not just related to evolution, it is the fundamental building block upon which evolution is predicated.

On speciation, before attempting to answer any question on the subject, one must attempt, first, to define 'species'. One of the obvious implications of the theory of evolution is that it obscures whatever apparent nuances there may have been between species in the past, and rightly so! It makes no sense to simultaneously promote a common ancestry of all species and emphasise dodgy invariant distinctions as well. This is not to say there are no existing definitions of species, but it means every definition can always be met with a fatal example. One definition says they are the largest group of population where two individuals can mate and successfully produce fertile offspring, but where would that leave asexual organisms, that are, themselves, fantastic in their many distinct expressions? Another definition suggests a species is any group that has exactly the same number of chromosomes; and the same number of nucleotides in each chromosome. But where would this leave large populations of amphibians and plants that do not have the same number of chromosomes, but successfully mate and produce viable offspring? The subject of species is a nebulous one which the theory can do without, though is conveniently used for it descriptive power. However, no matter what definition you use, evolution can sufficiently explain the process that led to the so-called speciation.

Happy sunday

happy sunday

Cool talk

Freiburger

cool talk

.

Very good

Did any of those Scientists believe in the FULL GOSPEL?

I do not believe so.

They always believe in some TRUNCATED, DILUTED, ABRIDGED version of The Gospel.

Only so could they have gotten honour from their fellow men.

For example, KENT HOVIND has renown for dumbfounding Evolutionists.

But his Belief in CREATIONISM stops short of actually creating or resurrecting an creature from earth or water- which would end all controversy, for once and for all.

.n

oaroloye:
Did any of those Scientists believe in the FULL GOSPEL?

I do not believe so.

They always believe in some TRUNCATED, DILUTED, ABRIDGED version of The Gospel.

Only so could they have gotten honour from their fellow men.

For example, KENT HOVIND has renown for dumbfounding Evolutionists.

But his Belief in CREATIONISM stops short of actually creating or resurrecting an creature from earth or water- which would end all controversy, for once and for all.

hmmm

Always showing others the light. Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works.... Science is one of the lights we shone for mankind.

4everGod:
Always showing others the light. Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works.... Science is one of the lights we shone for mankind.

Truth