quisquose Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Does UCL have a department of Gastronomy and Neurosurgery? UCL Dept of Physics and Astronomy No, but they do have a department of Greek and Latin. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GrandLat/ Your point being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 copy and pasted from some one else And that someone would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. copy and pasted from some one else So what you're implying (or claiming) is that each species is fixed and unalterable (and therefore cannot have a common ancestor), which raises the questions of how, when and where they appeared on the planet, or, did all the species that are still extant (and extinct) appear simultaneously at the beginning of history? If you think one or the other, can you explain in a nutshell how these processes might have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 If you think one or the other, can you explain in a nutshell how these processes might have happened? Magic man done it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. copy and pasted from some one else Why are there no large mammal fossils from the time of the dinosaurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Is the BBC obsessed with evolution ? We seem to get weekly programmes either propagating the Theory of evolution or at least mentioning it , From radio to Childrens learning programmes all involve evolution , When intelligent design is mentioned it is done so in a negative light , Thread is not to debate the Theory , but how the Theory is obsessively used in BBC programmes Yes, the BBC are engaged in an Illiminati conspiracy to indoctrtinate the masses with things for which there are evidence, whilst at the same time deliberately marginalising the far larger and more widespread beliefs for which there is no evidence. For example, In the last decade, the BBC has dedicated less than one hour of air time to The Tooth Fairy (praise unto her blessed wings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. copy and pasted from some one else Pretending that 'microevolution' is real but evolution isn't is as asinine as arguing that you can 'micro-walk' distances up to 100 metres but that walking any further is impossible. Evolution is simply what happens when 'micro-evolution' goes on for extended periods of time. Your new cut an pasted nonsense requires that there is some magical completely arbitrary limit in variation that limits changes to 'micro-evolution' only no matter how many billions of years go by. Would you please explain what exactly this limit is and how it functions to prevent speciation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. If Creationists concede that there is variation within a species then there must have been an original form of bird, spider or fish etc. Would the original bird be similar to an Eagle, a Penguin or an Ostrich? Have they identified it (or anything) from the Fossil Record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Your new cut an pasted nonsense requires that there is some magical completely arbitrary limit in variation that limits changes to 'micro-evolution' only no matter how many billions of years go by. Would you please explain what exactly this limit is and how it functions to prevent speciation. I suspect one reason being inferred is that different species cannot interbreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 If micro-evolution is possible, but evolution isn't, at what point do we say that differences are a result of micro-evolution or a result of different starter species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.