Lothario1132,
But that drug resistant bacteria is still bacteria right? Just like the famous moth in England that proved evolution. It was still a moth, just a different color.
The following was cited, " T. Dobzhansky, & O. Pavlovsky, “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophilia”, Nature 23, P. 289-292 (1971)"
"An experiementally CREATED incipient . . . "
At least no one here mentioned Stanely Miller’s famous experiement of creating amino acids. Where he proves that someone or something needed to start the process he set up.
“The biology of four haplochromine species of Lake Kivu (Zaire) with evolutionary IMPLICATIONS.” Thesis, Dept Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, (1992). " (caps mine)
Fruit flys? They are still flys. I guess what I’m getting at is that I haven’t been shown a link that shows the fruit fly is now a bird and that each link was found.
“Making evolutionary history compatible with the classification systems already established was no easy task, however. Critics argued that classification should be consistent with phylogeny, but not based solely upon evolutionary history. They advocated using other factors, such as behavior or anatomy, along with phylogeny to better classify organisms. This controversy over the fundamental approach to classification continues today.” Encarta
What is obvious here, is that different parts of science (taxonomy in this case) is being made to fit evolution.
“Skunks, for example, traditionally have been classified with badgers, ferrets, and minks in the family Mustelidae. But recent studies of molecular traits indicate that skunks differ significantly from these animals and may warrant classification in their own family.” Encarta
Classification, then cannot be used to prove evolution. It is dynamic and changing before us thanks to DNA testing.
“Broadly speaking, a species is a group of closely related organisms that are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.” Encarta
Anyone remember the different hoax (what is the plural hoax anyway? Beats me) regarding Lucy and other so called missing link skeletons? Those were scientists committing fraud! They were mixing and matching bones from different organisms.
"Feathered Fossil a Hoax
A fossil found in Liaoning Province, China, was reported by National Geographic to be a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds. The fossil, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, was said to have the tail of a dinosaur and the chest and shoulders of a bird. Now, however, scientists are becoming convinced that “they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery,” reports Science News. Paleontologists who examined the fossil became suspicious after they noticed that the bones connecting the tail to the body were missing and that the rock slab showed signs of being reworked. Philip Currie, of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller, Alberta, Canada, suspects that someone “sought to enhance the value of Archaeoraptor by pasting one part of the dinosaur"s tail to a bird fossil,” says the report."
“How the millions of existing species came about is a question that has plagued evolutionists for a long time. For a species to be a species, it cannot interbreed with other species?even the one from which it is supposed to have developed. If progeny does result, it either is sterile (as in the case of mules) or dies before reaching maturity. According to the science magazine Discover, geneticists now say they have found ?a rescue gene, a slight fault in the species barrier? that, while weakening the flies that carried it, enabled some hybrid males of a fruit-fly species to survive. ?However, the gene didn?t completely break through the species barrier; it couldn?t render the males fertile,? notes the article. This raises a ?troublesome question,? says Discover. ?If the parents that carry it don?t benefit from it, and offspring that inherit it can?t pass it on, how could the gene possibly have evolved?”
“In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of ?the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.? He said: ?The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].?13 Niles Eldredge also admitted: ?The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.?14”
So then Punctuated Equilbrium is proposed, but not widely accepted. Why? Holes in this theory of a theory.
“Francis Hitching observed: ?In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”
“To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” Francis Hitching
The evidence that has been cited on this thread doesn’t prove anything. Even that evidence comes under fire from other scientists (I will not quote here, but it can be easily found, and I’m about to leave for work). This evidence then is open to interpretation. Now we come full circle to religion. Ah, well why would I believe the bible, when there are so many interpretaions? Why believe in evolution when it is open to interpretation?
By the way, I am not a creationist in the strictest sense. I do not believe that the everything in the universe and on earth was created in a literal 6 or 7 days. The Hebrew words that are translated “day” do not always mean a finite period of time.
