double post

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory (or Darwinism) isn't. Animals can adapt to their surroundings, however they can't seem to make them become other animals which is the basis of evolutionary theory.

Paladin writes

This statement of yours is what my question referred to...

I mentioned the Fall becasue that's when death entered the world.  

The distiction is clear as mud. For example, lets say you define a species as what can interbreed and produce viable offspring. (The Endangered Species Act uses this.) Suddenly . domestic cats and taiwanese leopards are the same species. If you define a species by how things look, many domestic cats are different species. We actually made these things look different ourselves, and this is technically evolution by artifical selection (artifical evolution).

Looking at DNA is probably the surest bet, but it is costly, and it often shows that things looking the exact same and capable of interbreeding are actually different in cryptic ways. Maybe they prefer different pheromones or something. Who cares?

So realistically, the only thing that separates you from a domestic cat is your DNA, and if you were somehow able to reproduce with a cat (don't try this at home) and produce a viable hybrid, then your descendents and cats would merge into one "species". The point is that if allele frequencies change, this changes DNA, and the whole organism becomes something different. Whether it is "speciation", where species is an abstract concept, or not, is up for debate, given what a species actually is is up for debate.

The problem is like I said earlier on in this thread, DNA is self correctiong for the most part. Meaning that the dominant traits will always be prevelent. So, even if you had a hybrid human who had the tail of a cat, the human dna would be prevelent and the tail trait would weed itself out of the genes. It's basic DNA facts that make evolution hard to handle. The only way it might even possibly work is if you had mass mutations, but that's not very likely even with the earth making an abrupt change. Also, the current speices of the world have a set of DNA that is the same for almost all of them. They think that these were the dominant genes that have weeded everything else out over time. Which means there was more species in earth's earlier history than there is now, they died out. Evolutionary theory goes the opposite way that genetics does, which makes Darwin's theory not make much sense in light of modern day knowledge.

more species in earth's "earlier history"..... is that before Adam and Eve and their subequent Fall from grace?

Hehe, yes, sorry for the slip.

Okay, the quesiton is why haven't we re-developed these lost species. I mean they're saying that one single cell organism became all life on earth so why in those billions of years have we lost so many more species than we've gained? Dominant traits aren't always prevalent, however the healthy traits are usually passed down. Either because of problems caused with reproduction or shorter lifespans of those who have unhealthy parts of the dna. I mean that after all is part of the "survival of the fittest".

Only of themselves....haven't you heard the population of most if not all of Europe and Canada is in serious decline below fertility replacement. Why's that do you suppose?

That is not completely true. Back in the 70's there was a big push for ZPG, it was all the rage in Europe but not so much in America. Since the population in Europe is dropping and services still need to be done the Africans are moving in to fill the gap. So yes there are fewer Europeans but they are being replaced by Africans that were not enlightened enough to kill off thier children in the womb. Another fifty or sixty years and there won't be a European majority in Europe. The same is happening much slowly here in America with the South Americans and Africans. Can't wait to see who wins, Us, the South Americans, or the Africans. Time will tell but Liberals are an engangered species no matter which way it goes becaue they are the largest group that kill thier children.

Might not take that long.  The birth rate among residents of non-European ancestry is already nearly double the rate of native Europeans.  The effect of immigration plus post-immigration births is impressive.  If the immigrant populations were being integrated into the larger society in the way that US immigrants chose to in the Ellis Island days, it would be a non-issue.  Unfortunately, there is a high probability that once they reach a significant majority, their inclination to respect, support & maintain western values, traditions and legal principles will be low, even among those who've identified themselves as less concerned with religious rigor in the just-released Gallup poll which was commissioned in an attempt to re-assure us.

I'd like to think that they'd want to preserve the aspects of European culture that attracted them to immigrate in the first place, but I've seen no evidence of any inclination, on the part of either Islamic immigrants or native Europeans, to oppose the extremist immigrants among them who wish to impose Islamist culture, not to mention Sharia Law, upon their new homelands.

So, because life exists we've gained more than we've lost?

The fact someone asks this question is stunning, as in stunningly stupid.  Mind boggling.