Farinata, dear friend,: (I didn't expect you to try using the theory of evolution to back up your attempts to debunk the theory of evolution!)
AGAIN, the white moths never dissappeared, they simply went to the minority for a time, and then went back to the majority. No new species, just a different ratio of the existing ones over differing times. Are you stating that that's speciation?
If so, hand in your diploma.
: No. When the n-th generation moths can no longer interbreed with their progenitors, they are considered to be a separate species. At least, that's according to the scientific definition of "speciation".
So how many n+1 generations will the mule produce from its progenitor mule, smart scientist?
: Funny, that; considering that humanity has been spread throughout the planet for much longer than that (~10,000 years at least).
I agree that the Neolithic Revolution and Adam's date on earth some 12,000 to 13,000 years ago are in synch. Science and the Bible do agree, don't they?
: Well, heck, no, we haven't discovered any major new species in the last 4000 years, in much the same way that we haven't discovered any new moons of Earth in the last 4000 years.
Well count the years to the Cambrian Explosion and count the number of species since. I think that you'd have to agree that it would have to be a speciation rate greater than one new one per year. Let's see, then we should see conservatively 13,000 x 1 = 13,000 new species since Adam. The fact of the matter is that there is zilch to show. Now, who's eyes are closed?
Moreover, given that the extinction rate is estimated at 5 to 50 species per day, Darwin better stop dilly-dallying around.
: To expect that new species would suddenly arise out of nothingness in 4000 years (a geological heartbeat) is ludicruous. Do you expect to see park benches spring into fully formed existence? No.
Again, God has rested.
: Evolution is a gradual process; microevolution; as observed in bacteria and simple lifeforms *can* be observed in the wild. But we don't have breeding records going back further than 300 years; expecting any complex animal to show major variation in that time is unrealistic.
So you admit that your "science" is based on a lack of evidence. Thank you very much indeed.
: : : 13. There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species in nature.
Why then do evolutionistists call it the Cambrian Explosion?
: Yes it is. In fact, it's what speciation is all about, according to the sciences. The point at which two similar races can no longer interbreed is when they become separate species; thus, the above is a valid example.
Races as different species? Sounds a bit Aryan to me. Seems like we've been down this road once before this century with the Ubermann concept, eh hem.
: Can you find a single shred of scientific evidence that runs counter to what I've said; or to the theory of evolution?
Surely, look at the counter points above. And look at my original point of evidence which you, perhaps unknowingly, have confirmed with your "long-duration" speciation arguement. The speciation rate since the appearance of man has gone to zero, exactly as the Bible says (God rested).
: Careful how you answer; if you try to use one of the points raised in this page (and that comprises most of your usual "reasons"), I will merely respond with the answer on that page; as they're scientifically correct to my (qualified) understanding. So read that page darn carefully; you'd better come up with something damn good or original; or admit defeat.
Right. Sounds like an open mind to me. Perhaps if I don't admit defeat, you'll start the bombing.
In Him, and thouroughly relaxed at that. Perhaps you can get in His grip as well. Ciao.
Robert
