RPGTopia

If you actually read the post, you would find that he didn't get every speices, but every genus. Evolving, or natural selection, only ouccurs between genus. If you consider evolving within one genus and nothing more beiliving evolution, then that's what I beilive in. Simply: I beilive in certain aspects of natural selction, AKA evolution, but not all of them.

Don't link to Wikpedia. I shouldn't have to explain how anyone can write anything and give all the links they want, not to mention there is quite a lack in external links. Wikpedia is useful, but not for declaring statements false.


After the flood, the earth was much different. Why couldn't that have killed the dinosaurs off? And also, if evolution is true, why did the dinosaurs die off? Couldn't they have evolved to adapt to these new conditions. Okay, the thing I beilive about natural selection is that animals can only "evolve" into something within their genus. Like one type of bird to another. But not a blue jay to a Raptor. Those two birds aren't in the same Genus. Like the blue jay gets a stronger beak and different colors, which is a species of bird that already exists.

They couldn't evolve because A) There weren't millions of years for them to ADAPT, the extinction event happened and most died then. B) The oxygen changed, which killed the rest (Besides the small ones, who evolved into modern birds). Its like you going on the top of a moutain and living there without oxygen for more then an hour. You'd die.

Also, the flood COULDN'T have killed the dinosaurs because that would imply that man arrived about 65 million years before they actually did. See the problem there?

The aftermath of the flood, I said, could've killed the dinosaurs. And why would it apply that? Why can't man co-exist with dinosaurs? There is no smack down evidence that proves that man not co-esisting with dinosaurs is fact and not an inference. Infact, evolution is still an inference. There all theories. There's no proof, there's evidence. Evidence and proof are two seperate things.

Why didnt evolution save the monsters? It takes time. Over a fifty generations or so to make seriously noticeable changes. A quick severe change of climate would take less than two to kill them off.

and tell me. What reason would a blue jay have to evolve into a raptor?

(By raptor I mean bird of prey, not the dinosaur thing)

I'm just giving an example.

The question still stands.
Why would a blue jay, perfectly adapted to its enviroment, change into a raptor?

RL....the very first humans were discovered and dated for times during the ice age...how do you explain that?

Ice Age first humans = Prehistoric Dino land? I don't think so...

As I said, it was an example. It wouldn't, and even if all the prey became predators and it needed to be a raptor, it couldn't. So ya, it wouldn't because it dosen't need to. And I'm saying even if it did need two, sucks for it, cause it can't.

And the only thing were sure of humans existing is the early recordings. There is no flat out proof that the ice age hunters were the first humans ever.

If all the prey became predators? I'm not really sure of a Seeds chances at takeing down a blue jay. I would geuss a fly would have a tough time aswell.

ya know whats worse about this, while RL closes his mind off to the theory of evelution, slowly and steadily, he is actually agreeing to it

I have agreed to these aspects of it for a while, not much has changed. Like at all. Ask any creationist. He'll tell you the same things. I'm afraid I'm just not being clear enough. Let me clear things up.

The only aspect of natural selection I beilive is that one genus can become anything within that genus. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that good?

As for the blue jay, ya, it wouldn't happen. Again, it was just an example. Maybe not the best example, but an example none the less.

im afraid a bad example is a useless example. Give me a better one and I might understand it better.

Okay... a fish evolving into an amphibian because the food is scarce in the water. I don't beilive it can happen because that is not only crossing the genus but a totally different type of vertebae. That is way impossible.

Actually RL you'd be suprised...

if food is scarace, usually things naturally balance out. Many fish die of starvation, leaving a balance between predators and prey. They then both expand at an equal rate.

Fish would not evolve to walk on land as they are perfectly suited to swimming in the water. Same reason you dont try to live underwater without suitably adaptive gear.

...then why do scientist claim that they did? I don't think it happened, I beilive that it's impossible, I mean, how the crap would a fish be having genetic material to become an amphibian, which it has no genes turned off for it. They are nothing alike. It can't evolve lungs. It's body is suited for gills, and it dosen't have genetic material for lungs.

then my creationist friend, the mud skipper, an amphibious fish, that uses it's fin for locomotion on land


So lets say this


A fish with strong flinss mates,and some of his offsring will have strong fins. They'll mate and then more fish will have strong flins. When food goes scarce, a fish might get beached in pursuit of prey. wait...it doesnt die by drying out...whats this, it's using it's finss to get back in the water!

LE GASP! THIS IS THE FIRST STEP FOR AMPHIBIOUS BEHAVIOR!!!!! Millions of years pass, and then, maybe, the fish wander on land looking for insects like ants to eat!

Who said it was a fish that came onto land? animals which dwell on the sea floor easily couldve made the steps to leave the water.

And how is it going to get legs? It dosen't have any genetic material for legs. And that isn't the fin's primary function. The fin's primary function is to propell it through water. It can't evolve in the first place, let alone evolve into its secondary function.

THEN EXPLAIN THE MUDSKIPPER!!


And, Like ive been trying to tell you....LIFE...DIDNT...COME....FROM....ONE....SPECIES!!!


for all we know, a variety of species evolved from different types of single cells.