Search results

by the way...if this test was performed in America, would the population have overcome the intolerance like the population in africa did? Why? Why not?

Surely you are not telling me that those who were lactose intolerant did not breed????? ....and the inability to digest milk is not lethal......[staff edit]

Amen!

Well Darwinian evolution is the prevailing scientific paradigm at the moment...and for a high-toned evolutionist to come out and rip Natural Selection is much like the Pope coming out and disavowing the Bible. This should not be taken lightly. S

that's a very reasonable post...and if I were swayed by the evidence of evoution, I'd probably think much along those terms. However, I just do not see evidence for evolution. First, there are biologicial limits to change that have never been able to be broken by scientists in a lab. The fly...

I'll go back and look...hang on.

I do not believe mountains could formed being pushed up one millimeter at a time over thouands or millions of years....such a thing looks like it was probably a result of a sudden crash of land masses.

what part of the following statement do you not understand?: I don't know if mountains were as high back then or not

Two in 75 years, Not hardly. http://www.molevol.org/camel/projects/synthesis/

this is my first comment on this thread...how could I change the rules? I don't know if mountains were as high back then or not...I was simply asking a question.

Churches spend their money on such things as feeding people in the community and sending missions around the world to witness the truth of Christ. The Church is not knee-deep in funding the politics of Origins.

what makes you so sure this mountain was this high when the flood happened? edit: oops this reply was meant for the OP

notice he didn't bother giving any explanations...he seems quite open to suggestions for a mechanism for macroevolution.

Hey...what do you know...that makes two cornell evolutionists who have dismissed neo-darwinism as myth that has brainwashed the public for the past 75 years. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1714

where did I claim that the refutation of sexual selection meant the end of neo-darwinism??? Personally I find sexual selection quite plausible...but I dont think it has anything to do with RM + NS.

williams...and then further down -- on the next page -- you'll find this: Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to...

read his words yourself. I just repeated them. I no longer see natural selection as a mechanism, or an active cause of evolution.”

who says it's non-existent...not me. What he's saying is that it's not a creative mechanism -- which is what I've long said. NS is nothing more than the weeding out of the drastically weak or freaks of nature. It creates nothing.

don't you guys think that if Natural selection was the "fact" that it is proclaimed to be that there would be no way an atheist professor could turn his back on it????

lol......The theory of evoution is dying a slow painful death and there's nothing anyone can do about it. The whole thing is in utter turmoil. S