Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

Uhmm, I fail to see where I delibaretly insulted somebody...was it "did you study that too"?....because if thats what it is....that was not an insult, it was sarcassm, and to be honest here, I meant it more as a joke. Who would get offended at being asked if theyre a scholar? Did I call him a moron?...as he did with the caricature that he posted as a response to my opinion? No, I did not insult anybody....I wrote what I belived in and I get "ganged on " by his friends. What is it with people that cant handle someone else's opinions? Why must they attack? I posted my believes and now I have to justify myself to some of you....sorry but I wont. I dont "troll", and I dont post anything looking for a fight...please dont misunderstand me...and do what I do....if you dont like the post..dont respond.

The part where you claim Darwin is a Coke Head silly (I even addressed the insult to Darwin). I do not know how you were able to miss that. So I ask again, what is your basis on your claim? That is also a reason why I initially assumed your were trolling.
Also, why do you feel you're being ganged on? Is it because we(I) addressed your baseless arguments and provided examples/evidence supporting our(my) argument? If you had read the previous posts (not just the last page), many of your criticism on Evolution has been already addressed and counter-argued. This gave me (and others) the assumption that you didn't care about the others' arguments, that you just stated your position without providing anything to backup your claim.

Cheers

Yanoda

[WD-40]

Ol Barclay here is a 'Coke Head'. He loves to wear the Pirate Hat when he snorts!

BarclayResizeCokeHead.jpg (64.84 KiB) Viewed 1335 times

[THEWULFMAN]

if you dont like the post..dont respond.

If I don't like your post, that's every reason to respond. If you don't want people arguing with your narrow point of view, then keep it to yourself.

[11_Panama_]

Happy New Years everyone...even you too wulfman. Let it go...OK?.

[Yanoda]

I would still like to know the reason why you (Panama) had to call Darwin a "Coke Head".

Either way, the real reason why I'm posting...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 542.x/full
To summarize the very interesting research article:
It has been observed that Chinook Salmon start to differ from each other (also genetically) within only 10 generations since they were imported in the 1960s to hatcheries in Michigan. I think everyone knows what the implications would mean in terms of Evolution of Life.
The article may be difficult to read but enjoy it nonetheless.

Cheers

Yanoda

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Either way, the real reason why I'm posting...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 542.x/full
To summarize the very interesting research article:
It has been observed that Chinook Salmon start to differ from each other (also genetically) within only 10 generations since they were imported in the 1960s to hatcheries in Michigan. I think everyone knows what the implications would mean in terms of Evolution of Life.
The article may be difficult to read but enjoy it nonetheless.

The dramatic claim made, "Chinook Salmon start to differ from each other (also genetically) within only 10 generations" is not shocking, not informative and does nothing but strengthen the concept of Intelligent Design in terms of the "Evolution of Life."

Chinook Salmon (dear God just look at the species NAME!) are NOT a native species of fish in the Great Lakes. A concerted effort to populate the species for game fishing in the Great Lakes has been going on for more than 50 years, both in the United States and Canada. Using numerous massive hatcheries, spawning pens and various other techniques, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with Canadian fishermen clubs (sanctioned by the Canadian MNR) have created a genetic experiment Nazi scientists would marvel at. Take a couple of minutes to read ANY historical information on this program and ANY scientist with an ounce of integrity would describe any genetic research as prejudicial and skewed away from any natural maturation of genetic evolution (set aside that the information comes from a single, uncorroborated study, with such a low statistical margin using an outdated mathematical formula). To imply that this program has ANYTHING to do with natural "Evolution of Life" is silly in the extreme. If you look at a zoo born Liger you will find a higher statistical aberration in a SINGLE generation than the study on Chinook Salmon in Lake Huron and prove the point even faster.

The REAL point is, that the theory (yes I said "theory") of "Intelligent Design" has significant evidence to support itself. Through intervention and design, an organism can be caused to change and grow in specific and directed ways. This is displayed by your cited article. The statistics point DRAMATICALLY more in the direction of the current state of our combined genetic pool being engineered than by happenstance.

[Hobo]

@ProfessorDreadNaught
"the theory (yes I said "theory") of "Intelligent Design" has significant evidence to support itself.Through intervention and design, an organism can be caused to change and grow in specific and directed ways." --Dread.

I thought the theory was called "Artificial Selection"?

Heres an example:

Video about this example:

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

The "SuperCow" is genetic engineering. There's a difference.

[Darth Crater]

I'm aware of evidence (primarily in the form of fossil records) that supports the natural development of humans over a long period of time. I'm not aware of any evidence that the process was interfered with by any outside entities. Could you fill me in on this evidence, since you claim to have enough to distinguish intelligent design from simple undirected evolution?

Yanoda, is there any way to get access to the full article?

[THEWULFMAN]

The "SuperCow" is genetic engineering. There's a difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVZi9Iq8 ... re=related