Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum 360 million year old lamprey fossil

So, two more questions:

Are bacteria and protists included in this creation, and how does this fit in genesis?

Also, I see that evolution occurred after the flood in your view. Did this happen before as well?

Thanks again

re: "After the world wide flood speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate...." -trilobyte

As eternautu asks in the 2nd question, are you granting the mechanisms of speciation? Or could I ask how you define speciation?

any reply to my above post?

Did you get to read the discussion section of
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/hartl/lab/publications/pdfs/Lemos-05-Evolution.pdf
?

looking forward...
~samwik

I'm fascinated samwik. Why are you looking forward to a response from a teenage troll?

DA!
I think it is a very revealing question!
et thought so too. (the one about "speciation")

Plus I'm hoping to get a response to my "facts" inquiry on the "G&s" thread from trilobyte.

Also I'd like to hear the response to my idea about mixing up base pairs and genes.

& re: the link too

Lots of reasons!
Thanks,
~samwik

P.S. Just because I'm answering this doesn't mean I accept your premise (basic assumption) about troll-like nature.

~S

Trilobye wrote:

"Kinds do not equal species. The closest comparism would be something like genera/family."

At least we've cleared that up to some extent. Of course this opens another can of worms for you but we can safely leave that for now.

But you have often said yourself that many mutations are harmful. Therefore you already accept that unless a mutation provides an advantage for any members of a poulation with it it will remain at a low level in that population. Genes that are selected for lead to rapid change in a population, as we know from plant and animal breeding. The confusion you have seems to stem from the fact you don't understand that it is the environment that leads to evolution, not some mysterious force that demends change for change's sake.

Regarding the species you mention that survived the K/T extinction. You should have noticed they were all far from the inpact point of the meteor. Extinction was most severe in North America and Europe. Hope this explains any misunderstanding you have.

samwik wrote:
"I think it is a very revealing question!
et thought so too."

I do too but that's not the point.

"I'm hoping to get a response to my "facts" inquiry on the "G&s" thread from trilobyte."

Review everything he has ever posted to SAGG. Do you see a single post that evidences a response that rises above "Yes you did ... no I didn't ... yes you did ... no I didn't? ... Can to ... Can not ... yes he did ... no he didn't ... you're just saying that because your an evoist"

Get real. You are spitting into the wind. The outcome is just as easy to predict.

DA, it's just an experiment; I'm willing to wait -...in the peace and quiet.

~samwik ?

The post I was asking a question about has paragraph structure (barely, but still):

"Kinds do not equal species. The closest comparism would be something like genera/family.

The original species that represented the kinds were created with in a few days of each other. If you read Genesis you'll be able to see what days certain animals were created on.

The flood destroyed a lot of species..but preserved the kinds that they represented.
After the world wide flood speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation." -trilobyte

DA, even if this is cut'n'pasted from some other site, I'm just asking a question (as was et).

But alas I'm still waiting in the peace and quiet (well, relative peace and quiet :rolleyes: ).

~samwik?

"LOL, I just posted several SCIENTIFIC reasons why living fossils dismantle the RELIGION of evolutionISM....and that is your reply?"

No, you didn't. They are not scientific reasons and they do not dismantle evolution. You don't understand evolution.

"I think I just casted more pearls before swine."

I think you don't know the difference. Ignorance can be cured. Heal yourself.

"you fail to present answers."
Unlike creationists, scientists don't just make up answers.

"How do mutations add up? No answer."
Answered in full.

"The chimp human split...once again no answer."
Answered in full.

"echo-location "evolution"..assummed with no model to allow for it to develope."
I didn't refute it, but it was no challenge to evolution.

You're a legend in your own mind.

IFF is correct ... ignorance can be cured. But a troll's purpose is not to learn.

Samwik wrote:
"DA, it's just an experiment; I'm willing to wait -...in the peace and quiet."

Sort of like see what happens when you throw an ice cube into a roaring fire.

You are talking to a teenage cult member. He can do nothing except regurgitate what he has been fed.

Long sigh.

Hiya,
Any discussion on the "speciation" question that both eternautu and samwik brought up on the previous page?
Thanks,
~sa

P.S. Sorry, I didn't see your first post above.
Okay, that's an answer. Thanks, ~sa

A long sigh and a total misrepresentation of evolution: You got what I expected.

Want to try the same thing again and see if you get a different result? ;-)

Thanks trilobyte,

re: "No mutations are required for speciation."

I'll look into this on some of the links out there.

Thanks again,
~samwik

Oh, now Morgan wants to try and answer the tough questions?

So much for your fish not changing in 360 MILLION YEARS

Mind elaborating on that last post, Trilobyte

Samwik: don't bother. Trilobyte doesn't know anything about speciation, nor evolution, nor biology. He cannot begin to comprehend the implications of his definition of kind, and the wildly accelerated evolution that he must believe occurred after Noah's Wet Season.