Originally posted by AllianceThere are a lot of things affecting frogs right now. Thinning of the ozone layer and shallower water in swamps and the like caused by the increased occurence of El-Nino is exposing frog eggs to more UV-B radiation which is basically killing them all before they are born. I had to do a report on the decreasing frog population in university and I still remember this stuff. Debbiejo has a point. The problems that frogs (and really all amphibians) are having may be early indicators of problems we are having now. I vaguely remember something about the increasing favourable conditions for malaria and cholera being related to unfavourable conditions for amphibians.
Maybe this is the link. However, I thought the process was more direct.I do know pollution is directly affecting fertility.
Alliance-
All arrogance aside, you have yet to rebuke my position; you have chose to ignore the core issue(s) and taint your reponses with saucy, non-productive statements. Under such conditions, it is impossible for you and I to have a friendly debate. And, yes, I may have come off the wrong way with certain statements, but I never disrespected you. It seems as if you are simply looking for an argument. Hopefully, we can hit the reset button and get down to the debate.
Now... in response to your last message, you obviously lack the understanding of "NET" evolutionary change. Read carefully.
Organisms have been documented under going genetic mutations -- even human beings! NO ONE DISPUTES THIS! However, mutations do not add information to the DNA code. Instead, genetic mutations damage and/or "take away" from the code. Such truths do not, (in any way, shape, or form) aid the organism whatsoever. As previously stated, mutant organisms are always deformed, sterile, and sickly. Moreover, the DNA code in error -- the mutation -- would not be passed on to the next generation. In other words... their would be no "NET" evolutionary change. The mutated organism simply dies off.
Neo-Darwinism? Not a proper term?? Are you kidding or what???
The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics.
Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.
Whoops goes your theory of "proper terms."
Originally posted by Alliance
What does the word mutation mean? How can one be exposed to it. This isn't Spiderman, retard.
Being "exposed" to mutation merely describes a "condition." An organism exposed to an error in its DNA code!
Now... back to matters of fact: please give one example of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism; just one! Please, I do not care to hear wish speculation on your part and/or the many desperate theories regarding random mutation (Neo-Darwinism) that have plagued the internet like a fart in a crowded elevator. Just give one example of such occuring in nature. Just get to the point.
Originally posted by ushomefree
I assume that many of you chose not to review the website (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html)
The Collapse of Darwinism:(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7F7-3E90PU
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8Gc2RnItbA
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIrr_yilRfY
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgw9OmJ34o
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhSCOJuVzes
(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVvfJMiuX7U
I can't believe I actually took time out of my day to watch that crap. The narrator, writer, director, etc (Whoever was the one to actually make it) had a superficial understanding of both religion and evolution. Terrible, really.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Alliance-All arrogance aside, you have yet to rebuke my position; you have chose to ignore the core issue(s) and taint your reponses with saucy, non-productive statements. Under such conditions, it is impossible for you and I to have a friendly debate. And, yes, I may have come off the wrong way with certain statements, but I never disrespected you. It seems as if you are simply looking for an argument. Hopefully, we can hit the reset button and get down to the debate.
Ok then. I'll respond to your misconceptions about evolution. However, I'd like to know what you are arguing for and what you are arguing against so I can frame the debate properly.
Originally posted by ushomefreenewb must die
Alliance-All arrogance aside, you have yet to rebuke my position; you have chose to ignore the core issue(s) and taint your reponses with saucy, non-productive statements. Under such conditions, it is impossible for you and I to have a friendly debate. And, yes, I may have come off the wrong way with certain statements, but I never disrespected you. It seems as if you are simply looking for an argument. Hopefully, we can hit the reset button and get down to the debate.
Now... in response to your last message, you obviously lack the understanding of "NET" evolutionary change. Read carefully.
Organisms have been documented under going genetic mutations -- even human beings! NO ONE DISPUTES THIS! However, mutations do not add information to the DNA code. Instead, genetic mutations damage and/or "take away" from the code. Such truths do not, (in any way, shape, or form) aid the organism whatsoever. As previously stated, mutant organisms are always deformed, sterile, and sickly. Moreover, the DNA code in error -- the mutation -- would not be passed on to the next generation. In other words... their would be no "NET" evolutionary change. The mutated organism simply dies off.
Neo-Darwinism? Not a proper term?? Are you kidding or what???
The modern evolutionary synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics.
Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.
Whoops goes your theory of "proper terms."
Being "exposed" to mutation merely describes a "condition." An organism exposed to an error in its DNA code!
Now... back to matters of fact: please give one example of the "NET" evolutionary change of any organism; just one! Please, I do not care to hear wish speculation on your part and/or the many desperate theories regarding random mutation (Neo-Darwinism) that have plagued the internet like a fart in a crowded elevator. Just give one example of such occuring in nature. Just get to the point.