GM>>>>You used to. Have I fallen out of favor with you?<<<<
Absolutely not! Just my poor usage of expression. What I meant was you
make a statement and I reply or I make a statement and you reply. Usually
I don't carry those any further. Notice I use the word 'usually'. There
are some instances where I feel additional comment is needed. Still am
enjoying this exchange immensely.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; hala ghazal
<casablancagirl@yahoo.com>; evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Evolution!!
> Date: Monday, July 13, 1998 9:32 PM
>
> At 01:14 PM 7/13/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>>So, are you saying that laboratory experiments have been conducted
for
> >more than 10,000 years and they have shown that evolution can't occur?
I
> >don't think any experiment has been going on that long. And if an
> >experiment has not been consistently carried out for the past 10,000
years
> >or more, then you can't say that experiments have indicated anything!<<<
> >
> >Yes I can. I usually do not answer your replies.
>
> 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