MISSING LINK FOUND: Amoeba proteus to Denneus pontificus

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:14 pm

I am going to stay out of this argument for now. But here is some fodder for the fire.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

finnbogi · Post by **finnbogi** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:41 am

Daryl Fletcher wrote:As we know, Charles Darwin lived in the 19th century. We have access to so much more scientific knowledge than people had then. We have many more fossils. We have found out a whole lot about DNA. We have found out that complex organs are much more complex than Charles Darwin ever dreamed of.

It is correct that we do have much more scientific knowledge than Darwin's contemporaries. None of this new knowledge has, however, yet cast doubt on Darwin's theories - quite the opposite, research in genetics and molecular biology seem to confirm the theories of evolution. In fact, what I find most interesting about this new fossil is that the scientists first predicted that they might find one of the links between fish and tetrapods in deltae or shallows from the Devon period. They then proceeded to search such areas and found what they were looking for.

Daryl Fletcher wrote:Could someone disprove his theory, based on what he said, using the evidence we have in the 21st Century? I think so. It could probably be done quite easily.
Would very many scientists want to take a stand and do this? I doubt it. I see a good deal more effort spent trying to prove this theory than disprove it.

I am sure that if any scientist had means of disproving Darwin's theories, they would go ahead. The theory of biological evolution can probably never be proven completely, rather than most other theories of (non-mathematical) natural science, but evidence on its behalf is abundant and until someone disproves it, it is the most promising candidate for explaining the various lifeforms we observe in the world.

Daryl Fletcher · Post by **Daryl Fletcher** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:35 am

Doug@GT · Post by **Doug@GT** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:02 pm

schlepporello wrote:Ya know, I just got to thinkin' thoughts I probably shouldn't have again and now I'm wondering something about evolution. Some people would say that certain animals have evolved from one variation to another as a means of survival (being able to eat from certain food sources or evading predators). There's one type of animal that mankind has been in direct contact with for thousands of years. Man is constantly killing this single type of animal as a source for food and certain types of clothing, yet to my knowledge this animal has not evolved in any way that would either help it to defend itself from man, help it to avoid man, or make itself undesireable to man. Behold, I give you the common cow, still just as dumb today as they were thousands of years ago and even today you can pull up next to one and kill it with a single bullet to the head.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:23 pm

In the meantime, we pagans in Oregon keep up the good fight:

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/ ... 407.p1.php

Evolutionary Biologists Score One For Darwin
By Greg Bolt
The Register-Guard
Published: Friday, April 7, 2006

By resurrecting a protein that disappeared 450 million years ago, a trio of University of Oregon researchers have shown how evolution could have produced the amazingly complex biological systems that some have claimed are evidence of "intelligent design."

The research, published today in Science magazine, provides an evolutionary path for the intricate "lock-and-key" relationship between a hormone and its biological receptor. Proponents of intelligent design contend that such relationships are evidence of "irreducible complexity," meaning they couldn't have evolved from the random changes that fuel natural selection and therefore must have been designed, whether by God or some other higher power...

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 8:35 pm

http://www.cowswithguns.com/Cowstory.html

This is too strange!

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:00 pm

You have to see the presentation in the original posting.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:44 pm

Not easily cowed, is he?

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 1:49 pm

What? You want to drive a steak through his heart?

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:16 pm

Beergardenblatter wrote:"He" has udders. Not unlike some guys I know.

Those ain't udders! "Cow well hung" indeed ...

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:02 pm

But is there a fossil record?

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 5:07 pm

Then why do they always refer to a "bone" er, never mind...

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:10 pm

Beergardenblatter wrote:I don't think there's any fossilized prehistoric privates

... well, certainly none on pub(l)ic display!

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:12 pm

windshieldbug wrote:Then why do they always refer to a "bone" er, never mind...

That is "difficult" to determine ...

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:49 pm

Beergardenblatter wrote:I don't think there's any fossilized prehistoric privates

Yes, there are. Enough said.

MartyNeilan · Post by **MartyNeilan** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:00 am

Kevin Hendrick wrote:
Beergardenblatter wrote:I don't think there's any fossilized prehistoric privates
... well, certainly none on pub(l)ic display!

What are you, nuts??