It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Beneia
A female yucca moth flies into the flower of the yucca plant, where she finds pollen... she then lays a single egg, and pokes it into that hole in the flower...
These two organisms could not exist without each other.
Evolutionists tell us that plants were produced (by accident) on the Earth long before insects.
If that were true, how could the yucca plant have lived?
The relationship between the yucca moth and the yucca plant could not have "just happened" by accident; it is too well designed.
Beck and colleagues tested slices of a half-metre long stalagmite that grew between 45 000 and 11 000 years ago in a cave in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when carbon dioxide evaporates out of cave seepage water. They found that carbon-14 concentrations were twice their modern level during that period. Current records of the levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere only cover the last 16 thousand years, and this discovery extends those records a further 30 thousand years.
Originally posted by Astyanax
It did not exist before yucca moths evolved. Its immediate evolutionary ancestor did not use a yucca moth to have its sex for it.
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Give me a break!
This does NOT prove evolution. It only proves adaptation.
Show me a cow evolving into a horse and then you might have something.
It is already established that species can have minor changes. The problem with evolution is that there is NO proof of one species evolving into another species. This must have happened since the whole point of evolution is that we humans came from monkeys which initially came from sludge in a pool of water right?
The carbon-14 levels are constant?
Galactic cosmic rays create most of the carbon-14 in our atmosphere, while solar cosmic rays generate a smaller fraction. The Earth is partially shielded from galactic cosmic rays by its own magnetic field and the solar magnetic field, which fluctuates as the solar cycle proceeds. But these effects are predictable and are thought to have changed little in the last million years - which means they cannot explain the glut of carbon-14...
Beck's team concludes that either a jump in the cosmic ray flux or a fundamental change in the carbon cycle must have produced the sudden increase of carbon-14. The team speculates that a supernova shock wave could have produced a flurry of cosmic rays...
we can be fairly sure that the moth was laying eggs in flowers it liked and plants that were pollinated in the process were more likely to reproduce. i can't see it working the opposite way. tell me something, at what point did the non yucca flower become a yucca flower and why could the two be considered different?
Originally posted by pieman
i'm not a creationist either, by the way... generally i believe that evolution is incorrect as it stands.
mutation is not natural selection, mutation is mutation.
the observation here is of natural selection. so if evolution=mutation in your head, this is not evolution.
mutation has never been observed to be beneficial
mutation does not sit well with natural selection because that requires a degree of equality in mutated vs normal features, making it a variation rather than a mutation.
doggedly holding to any belief is ignorance.
Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose
Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12