BS: Monkeys

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:26 AM

I'd like to know the basis for the assertion that only changes not included in existing genetic material are considered valid evolution.

'snot what I'm sayin, y'know?

I'm saying that the distinguishing difference between evolution and creation is not adaptation -- it is in how the jumps occur. And how the jumps occur is not adaptation. (as robo has chimed in, some are satisfied that the jumps are "mutations", others are not thus satisfied -- hence, a less exacting term "monster".)

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:27 AM

oh, and accordians are definitely a monster jump in evolution! There is hope for all because of the accordian.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:03 PM

LOL like I said, such jumps are not necessarily an improvement!

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:26 PM

Evolve or face extinction, robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:41 PM

LOL again. I'm willing to refine my statement to allow for the quality of the airpusher. AND I have an Einstein accordion T SHirT.

But I also know the joke about perfect pitch...

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:13 PM

Oh yeah!!! robomatic said:

"The main conflict between the religious and the scientific is lack of humility on the part of both sides."

That ought to be written in solid gold, seven stories high, and put up on Mount Rushmore. Good stuff, robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

you'd put an obviously vague and misleading proposition on Mt. Rushmore? *grin*

"You mean life is NOT a 3-legged kettle?"

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:37 PM

Life can be seen as a 3-legged kettle, I suppose. Why not? :-)