Macroevolution: Its all around us...

quote:

---

Is your cat then a 'fishing cat', Prionailurus viverrinus ?

---

Ding ding ding!Give the little lady a prize!!

Great. Only I'm not female.
But that's OK.
For some reason I assumed you were male.
...until I read some comments about your posts.EZS

quote:

---

Great. Only I'm not female.
But that's OK.

---

I was pretty sure you were male, but that's how the saying goes.I couldn't say, "Give the medium-sized male scientist a prize!".That just would have been as cool.

quote:

---

For some reason I assumed you were male.

---

Yeah, that happens a lot around here.Is it because I don't use lots of smileys?

quote:

---

...until I read some comments about your posts.

---

You can check out a picture of me here if you like.

actually I think it's the Harley, Jackboots and whip that leads folk astray

​

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What?!Who told people I have a Harley?

Wow. I'm impressed.
Not only female, but 'dishy' as they say over in the UK.Not what I expected for someone who appears to torment cats

Thanks for clarifying this for me. Your post was very helpful.Eres boricua? Cuando fue que estuvistes por mayaguez?

---

Viva Puerto Rico Libre. Colonialism is an international crime

quote:

---

We'll see what he says if he ever returns

---

Fisrt of all I'm a she. Second, There are six different parts of evolution, two of which are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. The whole reason I brought this up was because it seemed that you were just a little confused on terms. It looked to me like you were talking about micro-evolution, which I agree with because it proven and observable, and calling it macro-evolution, which is not. Even evolutionists should agree with this. With the exception, of course, that some still believe the miller experiment (oxygen would have terimnated the experiment and as we all know living things cannot survive without oxygen so they didn't really come close to creating life) Along the lines of micro and macro, it would seem that creating a new fish wouldn't claim anything for macro-evolution unless it formed legs. Same with a new type of insect. Wouldn't that be micro-evolution because it is still an insect and not an arachnid. This is just a thought but I'm still not sure that two insects mating would improve the species any. If you have an example I would like to see it, on a non-critical level.(if there is such a thing)This message has been edited by eclipse, 05-06-2005 02:18 PM

Only the classic creationists say there are six parts to evolution.Yet another God of the Gaps prayer.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are welcome.
It is refreshing to deal with honest curiosity.
So many seem to want to mount an attack on a post
before they fully understand it.Yo estuve en Mayaguez en el ano 1996 por casi 8 meses.
Estaba estudiando plagas de citricultura ahi.Chau

Actually, there are many forms of life that can live without oxygen. They are called 'anaerobes'. The whole point of the Miller experiment being conducted in the absence of oxygen is to replicate the primeval atmosphere that was devoid of oxygen. We didn't get an oxidative atmosphere until plant life became abundant and began producing oxygen (you have heard of photosynthesis ? )I will return later to deal with some other issues raised in your post if I have time, but you really bear a burden of reponsability to read a bit more science before you jump into the deep end of the pool.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-06-2005 03:57 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-06-2005 03:58 PM

Anaerobic bacteria obtain oxygen from the food they eat

quote:

---

Only the classic creationists say there are six parts to evolution.

---

How many parts do you say there are

No, no they don't. No more than you obtain cyanide from the food you eat.Oxygen kills anaerobic bacteria. It's fatal to their biochemistry, so obviously, they don't need it to live.

Two parts: Natural selection and random mutation.