reply to post by idmonster
Your biggest problem in understanding evolution is superbly shown within the above comment.
So your admitting that you want to claim any
changes found right off the bat as being evolution no questions asked.
You see evolution is just a word for "change within species". It doesnt matter whether you agree with the mechanisms, or if you have your own ideas
about how those changes occur, it is still evolution.
I understand that, but the real question is does change mean evolution?
Some of us are happy with the current scientific explanations to explain evolution, such as natural or sexual selection while others cite genetic
tampering by ET's.
Sadley the last one seems the most plausible.
Putting the mechanism for evolution to one side for a second, it still doesnt alter the FACT that evolution occurs. Even if you were correct and
intervention were proven, the question of evolution would still arrise.
Keep in mind we know nothing about this mechanisim. We have never seen it nor do we know the driving force behind it.
How did the interventionist become to be? How to explain the diversity from wherever it is you think we came from? (these are rhetorical
Well the bible is an excellent point of reference, for starters.
Which ever way you look at it, species change and that is evolution. Changes alone DO prove evolution.
I went to the store today to buy
something, and changed my mind, is that evolution. It was change.
The other problem (!!) you have is with speciation, but first I feel the need to address the Pilkingtonesque statement you make above.
Species do not decide they dont want to breed, and if even if they were able to make this choice, this would not have them defined as seperate
species. You are not a different species to every woman you meet just because they dont want to breed with you. In fact, even if they were physicaly
unable to breed due to physiological differences, this still would not make them seperate species. What defines them as seperate species is the
inability to breed gameticaly. i.e. the sperm (tadpoles) and egg could not fuse and create an embryo. (all of this has been covered previously)
Now see thats not what I get from all this, I see that they aren't able to produce offspring, not that it proves speciation at all.
How is it that kodiac bears are now mating with polar bears. Two complete different species producing offspring. I think your wrong. And if this is
shadowed delusions of science, they really have some work ahead of them.
Species is a concept defined by man to explain the above. In reality we are all the same, every single living organism on the planet. We are merely
replication factories for DNA.
That would be the 6 million dollar statement, right there. Species is a concept defined by man. Changes are
also a concept designed by man with no scientific basis for structure.
The species of DAN is a metaphore for DNA. All DNA on the planet is the same, the only thing that prevents your DNA from mixing with plant DAN is the
way it is laid out. (although I do believe there might be many other things that prevent your DNA from mixing with another humans -- just
The only problem is WHO laid it out.