On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:57:39 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net>,
John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,

dawkins is a religious nutball

Uh huh.
Get your ward nurse to take you back to your bed.
Ask her to tighten your straight-jacket as well, you fucking nut case.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:57:39 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net>,
John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,

dawkins is a religious nutball

Uh huh.
Get your ward nurse to take you back to your bed.
Ask her to tighten your straight-jacket as well, you fucking nut case.

One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:

� oEVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,� asserts
Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of
course,

dawkins is a religious nutball

This must be Brian Dawkins, the fry cook from Atlanta, Georgia you are
talking about.

One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:

� oEVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,� asserts
Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of
course,

dawkins is a religious nutball

This must be Brian Dawkins, the fry cook from Atlanta, Georgia you are
talking about.

example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen
when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing
when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution
between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish
did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same fish
that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than a stage in evolution,
is it not more reasonable to call it a separate creation, one that has
not become extinct?

Since this is textbook speciation and it HAS been observed, your
statement above is contrary to observation.

Where has it been observed, duplicated or falsified?

Dave Oldridge wrote:

John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in
news:fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net:

“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,”
asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary
scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that
the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide
the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?

Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up.
Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living
things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process
“descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes
have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used
ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. These changes can be
considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes
the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what
many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish the
proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.

The fossil record shows a successsion of ecosystems punctuated by
extinction events. We observe slight changes in every generation.
These are not just recombinations of existing genes. The changes
occur even when you start with monoclonal breeding stock.

Much emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms.
As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking
in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for
breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage
in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the
logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living
today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than
a stage in evolution, is it not more reasonable to call it a separate
creation, one that has not become extinct?

The fossil record gives another important kind of evidence that belies
evolution. The process of evolution is described as “the constant
change of living things.” But innumerable fossils are found in
ancient strata that, like the lungfish, are identifiable with modern
species. Imprints of leaves of oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia,
palm, and many other trees and shrubs, left on rocks of Mesozoic age
and since, are not different from those leaves today. The millions of
years, as estimated by geologists, since they first appeared have left
them without any evolutionary change. Likewise, hundreds of insects
left their mark in Mesozoic rocks. These imprints show them to have
been quite similar to species of the same insects we have now. As the
evolutionist puts it, “Insect evolution had been essentially
completed by the end of the Mesozoic”—the era in which they first
appeared.

Can such fossil evidence honestly be claimed to support the theory
that environmental pressures bring about a continual change in species
and produce new ones? Or does it not rather give the strongest support
to the principle that each species, once created, brings forth only
its own kind? Yes, and it has continued to do so generation after
generation throughout all the millenniums of time.

Speciation occurs when subpopulations become genetically isolated
from one another. Given the observation that new genetic information
is continually arising, it is a mathematical certainty that isolated
groups will diverge. It's also been observed that continued
divergence of this type eventually results in genetic
incompatibility.

Since this is textbook speciation and it HAS been observed, your
statement above is contrary to observation.

Where has it been observed, duplicated or falsified?

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in
his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not
as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few
beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these
original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms,
slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight
modifications”—into the millions of different forms of
life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes
accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into
amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are
referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds
reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a
species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long
periods of time?’

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.

They observably do.

You friends here claim there is no Macroevolution.