Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 238 (590181)
11-06-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Wounded King
11-06-2010 1:03 PM


Re: Single celled organisms with eyes
What are we talking here? Chlamydomonas and Euglena eye spots? Or bacteriorhodopsin?
Why is this an either-or question? All of them.
There is also an organism I've read about but can't presently find a reference for. It actually has a lens. And it has one photoreceptor on the end of a stalk. It waves the stalk about, and the lens is just the right shape ...
Interestingly, the first Mars missions used a camera with a similar design, I don't know why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2010 1:03 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2010 6:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2010 10:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 77 of 238 (590208)
11-06-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Single celled organisms with eyes
I'm not sure what the organism you are thinking of is, but I was reading a vey interesting review by Walter Gehring which described several unicellular vison sytems including those in Erythropsis and Warnovia which have some remarkable structural similarities to the lens and retina set up in many metazoa (Gehring, 2005).
The paper also puts forward the speculative hypothesisis that transfer of genes from such organisms as a secondary consequence of endosymbiosis might account for animalia acquiring photoreceptors.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 3:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 238 (590229)
11-06-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 3:16 PM


copepods
Hi Dr Adequate
There is also an organism I've read about but can't presently find a reference for. It actually has a lens. And it has one photoreceptor on the end of a stalk. It waves the stalk about, and the lens is just the right shape ...
See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..., Message 4:
quote:

Copepod:

This is a little critter that (shown here as a larvae) has a single eye and a single photoreceptor ... and yet it has a lens.

Why would it have a lens with only one photoreceptor (that is basically an on\off signal processor)? Because the photoreceptor is at the end of a little stalk that can move back and forth and up and down, covering the area that a more complete retina would cover with this single sensor. The stalk dances for the light.

Copepods are predators and use this dancing eye to build up a picture of their surroundings in much the same way that a laser light show can produce an image with one dancing light, or a television can produce an image with a dancing beam (of course both examples are commonly used to expand the intelligence of their viewers ... or is it just for silly entertainment?).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 3:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 10:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 238 (590233)
11-06-2010 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
11-06-2010 10:24 PM


Re: copepods
Thanks. That may well be what I was thinking of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2010 10:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 238 (590495)
11-08-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taq
11-05-2010 5:51 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi TAq,
Taq writes:
True or false. The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species who had a mixture of modern human and basal ape features.
The ToE does not predict anything.
People predict that the ToE predicts certain things.
'Macro-Evolution' is one of the things people predict that the Toe predicts.
Out of all the billions of 'Macro-Evolution' events that would be required to have taken place between the first life form on earth to produce all the different life forms of earth today there is no first hand account to read for any of them having taken place.
There is none that are reproducible.
The only evidence presented here is that there are changes that take place over time due to mutation and selection.
Since they happen on a small scale they 'MUST' happen on a large scale.
'FAITH' is required to believe these small changes can produce the changes necessary to produce the life forms of today, since there is 'ZERO' evidence to support such a position.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
Source
I am amazed at their statement:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
They then present an equation:
Mutation
     Gene Flow
    Genetic Drift     +  3.8 billion years = Macroevolution
  Natural Selection
But they nor anyone else can produce firsthand evidence for just one account of 'Macro-Evolution' having taken place in that 3.8 billion years.
According to Evolution 101 by Berkeley:
There are no first hand accounts to read.
They say, "When we've FIGURED out what events have taken place." (emphasis mine)
How is it possible to figure out what has happened if we have no firsthand accounts of events that took place to examine?
The only mechanism is the imagination of mankind.
Now if you have verifiable, reproducible evidence that
'Macro-Evolution has actually taken place please present it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taq, posted 11-05-2010 5:51 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 1:21 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 11-08-2010 3:29 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 81 of 238 (590496)
11-08-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Nij
11-05-2010 7:55 PM


Re: Eye
Hi Nij,
Nij writes:
I don't know much more simple it could be. The stuff is even laid out in a nice linear progression, with all these categories and intralinks; the second one is exactly what it says: a list.
Of transitional fossils.
Which you predict do not exist.
Because of there being no macroevolution.
But they do exist.
So you are wrong.
And thus there must be macroevolution.
If it is so plain and simple present your information in your words for me to argue against.
I am not going to argue against a bare link.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Nij, posted 11-05-2010 7:55 PM Nij has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 82 of 238 (590498)
11-08-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
11-08-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
The ToE does not predict anything.
People predict that the ToE predicts certain things.
So your only counterargument is that it is people who use the scientific method? Really? I think we already knew that.
So I will ask again. When people use the theory of evolution to make scientific predictions do those predictions include fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? Yes or no?
'Macro-Evolution' is one of the things people predict that the Toe predicts.
Yes, the theory of evolution predicts that evolution occurred. Crazy, isn't it?
Out of all the billions of 'Macro-Evolution' events that would be required to have taken place between the first life form on earth to produce all the different life forms of earth today there is no first hand account to read for any of them having taken place.
There is none that are reproducible.
The scientific method does not require a past event to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. It would really help if you actually understood how the scientific method works.
But they nor anyone else can produce firsthand evidence for just one account of 'Macro-Evolution' having taken place in that 3.8 billion years.
Macroevolution has been directly observed, many times.
Observed Instances of Speciation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 1:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:22 PM Taq has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 83 of 238 (590522)
11-08-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
11-08-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
The only evidence presented here is that there are changes that take place over time due to mutation and selection.
Since they happen on a small scale they 'MUST' happen on a large scale.
'FAITH' is required to believe these small changes can produce the changes necessary to produce the life forms of today, since there is 'ZERO' evidence to support such a position.
How long, ICANT, will this utter stupidity be repeated.
If one sees a man sitting in a chair who looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left it is up to them to establish and explain exactly why the man won't eventually wind up in San Diego.
The man started out as a Bosox, evolved through the stages of Phillie, Indian, Cub, Rock, and Rattler, to becoming a Padre. No one in Massachusetts ever saw him becoming a San Diegan and no Californian ever saw him as a Bostonian. But every observer in between could guess where he came from and knew where he was going. Unless of course the observer was a creationist. For them the man Poofed into existence in Des Moines. Why? Because a book they read say so. Actually it doesn't even say that. Some twit Nabraskan, 2000 years ago, wrote in a letter to his BFF about some idiot in a chair hopping down Main Street. And because the letter only mentioned Main Street, Main Street was the only place the creationist will consider the man in the chair having ever been.
ICANT, if a man sitting in a chair strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down,strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down,strums his fingers a few times, looks at his watch, stands, moves his chair a few inches to the left, sits back down, will he ever get past Main Street? Or is it impossible to know because no one was around to watch the man all day long?
AbE: I've just used an easily understood mechanism and its consequence as a metaphor for an easily understood mechanism and its consequence. I use a rather ridicules example in the hope that the recipient won't argue the metaphor; i.e., "Maybe the man was moving east." instead of the point of the metaphor. But I should know by now, ICANT, that you aren't trying to understand but trying to avoid confirming what you already understand.
So, more directly, ICANT, as the mechanism, a small change in position, which can be observed and repeated as often as one wishes without apparent limit, is so easily understood that its consequence, a large displacement give enough time, can not be denied, would it be up to the claimant to provide evidence that that is in fact the case?
Aside from the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii not having a MLB team, what prevents small changes from becoming large changes. ICANT?
Edited by lyx2no, : Forgot who I was talking to.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 1:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:45 PM lyx2no has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 84 of 238 (590530)
11-08-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
11-05-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Eye
Hi crashfrog,
crashfrog writes:
"Information transfered from the DNA to the ribosomes via mRNA" is an analogy for what is actually happening. What is actually happening is a chemical reaction between DNA, a suite of enzymes, a bulk amount of nucleotide triphosphates, and charged tRNA molecules. You can read about these chemical reactions in any undergraduate biochemistry text, such as Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry.
Will the ribsome produce a protein if it does not receive an order from the DNA?
The DNA in a human cell contains the instructions for the manafacture of over two million proteins. These are coded for by only 20,000 to 25,000 genes.
So how does the ribsome know which of these millions of proteins to build?
How can there be a chemical reaction between DNA which is in the nucleus of the cell and the ribosomes which are outside of the nucelus?
Can this occur without the information being sent from the DNA to the ribosome by the mRNA?
Can the ribosome understand what protein the DNA has requested to be built without the tRNA translating the information being delivered by the mRNA?
If there are only chemical reactions, how can there be mistakes made?
If there is no copying errors there can be no 'micro-evolution' muchless 'Macro-Evolution'.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 9:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 4:34 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:20 PM ICANT has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 85 of 238 (590533)
11-08-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
11-08-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Eye
Will the ribsome produce a protein if it does not receive an order from the DNA?
A ribosome will produce protein from mRNA no matter where that mRNA came from. This is due to the chemistry of both mRNA and ribosomes.
The DNA in a human cell contains the instructions for the manafacture of over two million proteins.
These are the same type of instructions that hydrogen and oxygen carry for the manufacture of water.
Can the ribosome understand what protein the DNA has requested to be built without the tRNA translating the information being delivered by the mRNA?
You are trying to anthropomorphize chemical reactions. Your post is quite silly, to put it lightly. Ribosomes don't understand anything. They don't have brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 4:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 10:24 PM Taq has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 86 of 238 (590539)
11-08-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by crashfrog
11-05-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Eye
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
None of the 29 evidences presented at that website are assumptions; each is a verifiable, empiric element of evidence that, when taken together, more than demonstrates that macroevolution occurred by some means. That it occurred by the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation is proven by the observation, in the contemporary lab, that natural selection and random mutation can cause macroevolutionary change.
Can you present the contemporary lab experiment that proves 'Macro-Evolution' has occured from all the little changes brought about by chemical reactions as you claim?
Why does Berekely say in Evolution 101 that there is no firsthand evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
Why do they say we have to figure out the events that happened?
Why do they then say we have to figure out how it happened.
Is that because there is no direct evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured?
Now if you want to present one or more of the 29 evidences presented by talk origins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do.
I am not going to argue with a web site.
crashfrog writes:
Incorrect. Every citation I presented was a Nobel Prize for contributing to the mosaic of evidence that supports macroevolution.
Are you saying the picture they painted proved that
'Macro-Evolution' has occured?
I thought they got the awards for coming up with a great scientific discovery.
crashfrog writes:
In this thread along you've been presented with more than four dozen pieces of evidence, all of which you've ignored.
I have been presented:
In Message 15 Taq gave me a reference to Thomas D. Schneider
talking about Shannons definition of information and how information could evolve.
In Message 23 Taq presented a photo of 14 different partial skulls as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution'.
In Message 36 Coyote presented cave images as evidence for writings over 6800 years old.
In a general post in Message 45 Coyote referenced the 29 evidences found at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
He made no argument.
In Message 46 you referenced the same website without presenting any of the 29 evidences and making an argument for them.
In Message 48 Nij presented two web sites with no argument from either.
29+ Evidence For Macrevolution
Wikipedia: list of transitional fossils
The list of transitional fossils states:
This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject.
RAZD mentioned the University of Michigan definition of evolution in Message 69 and another thread on micro-macro evolution.
In Message 71 you referenced talkorigins and their assertion.
So where are the four dozen references to information that
'Macro-Evolution' has taken place.
If you want to present the 29 references in talkorigins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do so one at the time.
State your case and present what you are affirming. General statements can not be rebutted.
crashfrog writes:
There are no eyes in single-cell life forms, because eyes are comprised of many thousands of cells.
So where did the information in the DNA come from to build the eye come from?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2010 9:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2010 6:06 PM ICANT has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 238 (590544)
11-08-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
11-08-2010 5:44 PM


Re: Eye
Can you present the contemporary lab experiment that proves 'Macro-Evolution' has occured from all the little changes brought about by chemical reactions as you claim?
I can and have. Can you respond to it, or not?
Why does Berekely say in Evolution 101 that there is no firsthand evidence of 'Macro-Evolution'?
They do not say that.
Is that because there is no direct evidence that 'Macro-Evolution' has ever occured?
29 evidences and more have already been presented that macroevolution has occurred and continues to.
Now if you want to present one or more of the 29 evidences presented by talk origins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do.
Very well, I choose to present all 29+ of them.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
I have been presented:
Indeed. When are you going to respond to that evidence?
If you want to present the 29 references in talkorigins as evidence for 'Macro-Evolution' please do so one at the time.
You can read all 29+ of them one at a time, if you choose, at the website at which they appear.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So where did the information in the DNA come from to build the eye come from?
By random mutation and natural selection, the same processes that have produced all the information in the DNA of all organisms; the same processes that are responsible for every feature of every living thing.
No matter what feature you ask about, ICANT, the answer is the same - random mutation and natural selection, because these are the processes by which macroevolution is known to occur and to have occurred. Any time you feel you're able to grapple with the evidence, you can start with the dozens of evidences already put before you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 5:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 238 (590545)
11-08-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ICANT
11-08-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Eye
Will the ribsome produce a protein if it does not receive an order from the DNA?
The ribosome will produce a protein any time it is in solution with ATP, mRNA, and charged tRNA molecules. For instance that is how RNA viruses are able to reproduce - the ribosome will produce proteins by chemical reaction any time it is in the appropriate chemical environment to do so.
So how does the ribsome know which of these millions of proteins to build?
The ribosome doesn't know anything. Ribosomes produce proteins by chemical reaction any time the reagents they need to do so are present, just as how any spontaneous chemical reaction will occur when the conditions under which it occurs are present. When you react baking soda with vinegar, you don't need to tell the reaction to begin - it begins as soon as baking soda and vinegar come into contact. Similarly, as soon as a ribosome comes into contact with mRNA in the presence of ATP and charged tRNA's, a protein will be formed.
How can there be a chemical reaction between DNA which is in the nucleus of the cell and the ribosomes which are outside of the nucelus?
Ribosomes don't chemically interact with DNA; they interact with RNA molecules called "mRNA's." When mRNA, ATP, and charged tRNA's are present proteins will be produced. It's a complex chemical reaction but it is nonetheless a chemical reaction.
Can the ribosome understand what protein the DNA has requested to be built without the tRNA translating the information being delivered by the mRNA?
Ribosomes don't understand anything, they're just enzymes. They catalyze a series of chemical reactions including base-pair hydrogen bonding between nucleosides and the condensation of a peptide bond between amino acids.
If there are only chemical reactions, how can there be mistakes made?
The mistakes happen as a result of these reactions being chemical ones. Chemical reactions are not deterministic, they are stoichiometric; their results are determined by probability and statistics. For instance, the reaction between toluene and iron bromide results in three different products - mostly the para and ortho products, and very rarely (if at all) the meta product.
The chemical reactions involved in DNA replication and transcription highly favor the desired outcomes, but the other products - the mutations, the "mistakes" - are improbable, not impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 4:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 11-09-2010 1:45 PM crashfrog has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 89 of 238 (590558)
11-08-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
11-08-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
So I will ask again. When people use the theory of evolution to make scientific predictions do those predictions include fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? Yes or no?
I googled "Is there fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features"
The first hit I got was the message I am replying too.
I did not find another such statement.
So if you got any pertenent information present it.
Taq writes:
Yes, the theory of evolution predicts that evolution occurred. Crazy, isn't it?
The ToE predicts that small changes will be made in populations which can be verified. Being a farmer I have used eveloution in the breeding of animals.
Many people predict that the small changes can over 3.8 billion years produce 'Macro-Evolution'.
There is not one verified instance of 'Macro-Eveloution' above the species level.
From the OP:
JRTjr writes:
I want to vary specific here, when I say Macro-Evolution I am speaking only of a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. {Quoted from Wikipedia.org}
Just so we are on the same page when writing our posts, I am using the definition of 'Macro-Evolution' as presented in the OP.
Taq writes:
The scientific method does not require a past event to be reproducible. What it requires is that the data produced by measurement or experiment be reproducible. It would really help if you actually understood how the scientific method works.
Then just produce one instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that is verifiable.
Taq writes:
Macroevolution has been directly observed, many times.
Then it should pose no problem for you to take your bare web site presentation and search it out and present one verifible instance of 'Macro-Evolution' that has taken place.
I will say once more I am not going to argue with talkorigins.
If you want to take one of their 29 evidences and present it stating what you affirm, I will then attempt to rebutt your argument.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 11-08-2010 1:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 11-08-2010 9:29 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 11-09-2010 4:20 PM ICANT has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 90 of 238 (590560)
11-08-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
11-08-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Macro-Evolution
Try googling "transitional fossils hominid" for more results.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 11-08-2010 9:22 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024