You used to. Have I fallen out of favor with you?
>Let the reader decide
>which is more logical. This one, however, just cries for a reply. Agreed
>that natural selection, if it occurs at all, must take thousands of years.
>However, you mentioned the Fruit Fly and that just begs an answer. It has
>been experimented with since 1901 by scores of dedicated evolutionary
>scientists and great effort and intelligence has been made to purposefully
>mutate it in an effort to prove that alteration by natural selection could
>occur. This has not - repeat - has not happened. Drosophila has been
>mutated to a fair-thee-well but always tends to return to its original
>shape. What I base my assertion on is that scientific fact does NOT support
>macroevolution. Scientific theory supports your conclusions, but the facts
>don't.
And as I pointed out that if you need the same number of generations to
alter a fruitfly that you need to go from a coyote to a wolf, then you need
38,000 years. Lets see, 1998 - 1901 = 97 years. 97/38000 = .25 % of the
time required. That is not much time.
>
>>>>What about bacterial resistance to antibiotics? That is beneficial<<<
>
>Yes, to the bacteria, but that is STILL not an example of a new mutation.
>The genetic information was provided all ready. This is merely an adoption
>of a characteristic that all ready exists.
>
>>>>> What about the mutation in that Italian family in the 1700s that makes
>them
>> immune to the effects of cholesterol?<<<<
>
>This one is new to me. Please elucidate. What type of Cholesterol is
>being discussed. There are 'good' and 'bad' types.
The bad.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm