Anyways, into the Bozo bin she goes.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:01:03 GMT, Apostate <durondae_@_hotpop.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <zT%di.3094$Zh6.846@trnddc04>

Consider the implications of the facts.

Ok.

If highly trained
scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing
and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent
process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot
transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how,
exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Where are the "facts"?
I only see questions based on the most abject ignorance.

Here is a fact for you:
You are a spamming ignoramus.

--

[.........snipped....]
Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that
mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new
families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold
claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of
genetic research has revealed.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded
research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution.
After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In
spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von
Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by
irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.” Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s,
the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure.
Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in
Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection
values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research
in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable
scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to
produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded:
“Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into
an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and
results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as
with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies
that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot
be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded
research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution.
After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results?
"In spite of an enormous financial expenditure," says researcher Peter
von Sengbusch, "the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive
varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure." L=F6nnig said:
"By the 1980's, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in
worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research
was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited
'negative selection values,' that is, they died or were weaker than wild
varieties."

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation
research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular
enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations
to produce new species. After examining the evidence, L=F6nnig concluded:
"Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal]
into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the
experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken
together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of
recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species
have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by
accidental mutations."

creationists? where?

http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html

Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:03:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , ZilentPanzer
<ZilentPanzer@mailinator.com> in <BoYdi.2875$Zh6.780@trnddc04> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:12:53 -0700, in alt.atheism , Wombat
<trigby@multiweb.nl> in
<1182265973.865507.298440@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 19 Jun, 13:19, Mennia <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the
remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."-Biology and
Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p.

What is the date of that book. Was it written in 1960, well before
the discovery of feathered dinosaurs in China, EXCLUDING the well
known hoax, in case your hands start waving.
btw, any cite should include a date, much has happened since 1960.
One is almost tempted to wonder if the dates are intentionally left
out - na, you wouldn't do that, would you?

You hit the nail on the head: it was 1960:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/pdfs/0104.pdf

And the title of the book is actually _Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds".

But leaving off the date was understandable since most of the
creationist mis-uses of this quote leave off the date.

creationists? where?

http://www.icr.org/article/177/
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k81.htm
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/education/education2.html

Jabriol, you may not be a creationist, but you look to creationist
sources and present creationist arguments.