100
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 227:
Line 227: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 11:07, May 22, 2007
, 11:07, May 22, 2007→Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.
How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.
Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.
Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.
Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.
Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.
My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?
Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007