Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed

John working dogs should not be altered, they work much better with their full complements. That's how it is for all true working dogs - police, guardian, stock, personal protection, tracker. It is the mixture of aggresion and prey/defence/hunt drive that gets the job done. You may own one Pyr, but I've also owned many working dogs as a child and adult (all from working lines), and if a predator ever got close enough they were dead, estrus or not.

Wishful thinking? I am not the one closing my eyes the evidence. The mechanisms are the same, they both lead to the same thing. To quote Wilkins " Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."

and M.Issak

""Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). "

"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."


Wow, John you must think yourself as some damn genius for you to suggest that it is not DNA that is the means by which mutations occur, and then are passed on to the progeny. Maybe it the evolution fairies? Using their evolution pixie dust? Yeah! that's a valid idea. Now I am certain that you don't know the difference between micro and macro. Your defitions while convenient to a creationist are not valid. Creationist have clung to this distinction like "a new-married wife about her husband's neck, hardly to be shook off."

You must suck at Jeopardy E_V_O_L_ _T_I_O_N, I can just hear you since the word is not complete, all consonansts gone, "Can I have a vowel?" It takes the same effort to solve this, as is would to see that Darwin predicted the existence of DNA.

What are "recessive genes that aren't dominated" anyways?

You want to prove evolution is false? Easy, find an organism that does not use DNA/RNA as the means of inheritance.

Tweet