Your proclaiming fiction does not make it so, except within the confines of your own imagination. Evolution of the species set apart from mere adaptation requires you to define the instant when adaptation becomes evolution. Otherwise, the scientist will simply state that there is no biological distinction between the change in a single DNA allele and the change from the ancient ancestor of the rat and raccoon into the modern rat and raccoon. The processes are identical -- the only difference is the time requirement and the number of intervening allele changes.
Your proclaiming fact does not make it so, especially when the facts you proclaim are a product of human imagination, not human observation and mathematical formulation. It is up to you to define the instant adaptation becomes this thing you call "evolution" as you are the one pushing "evolution" as a fact. I am not a believer in evolution of species, I am inclined to design of species, part of their design being survival instinct, birth, lifespan, and then death. I am only going with what is observed, i.e. that biological organism all have a survival instinct, a birth, a lifespan, and a death, and at times they are able to adapt to the environment through biological change. Sometimes they cannot adapt, and they die. Human beings have put species to extinction because they were not able to adapt to the danger that man has represented to many species....often as a result of modern science. This is all we know the rest is pure speculation and imaginations.
OK, if it's up to me to define the instant that adaptation becomes this thing that I call "evolution," then: 1. "evolution" is: the change in the allele of an organism's DNA. 2. "species" is: a class of biological organisms that can interbreed to produce a fertile offspring. 3. "evolution of the species" is: the moment in time, when the aggregate changes in the alleles of a class of organism's DNA causes that class to no longer be capable of interbreeding with its former class members. So, based on the above definitions, if a large number of worms of the same species is divided into two geographically isolated groups, and over time, those two groups breed among themselves, but not intergroup, and after some period of time, changes to the alleles of both of the geographically isolated groups causes the two groups when brought together again to be unable to interbreed, then "evolution of the species" has occurred, according to my definitions (and because you have permitted me to make the definitions, rather than to make them yourself, then my definitions are the only definitions that I need apply). The above test was conducted from 1982 to 1997, by Weinstein, et. al., and the results were confirmed, exactly as I just hypothesized. Therefore, evolution of the species is a proven scientific fact. Now, if you have a different definition of "evolution," "species" and "evolution of the species," and you have a scientific hypothesis, and an experimental test, and confirmation that the test fails, so as to disprove "evolution of the species," then let's see it. Or, if you have a definition of "intelligent," and "design," and "Intelligent Design," and a scientific hypothesis, and an experimental test, and confirmation that the test succeeds, so as to prove "Intelligent Design," then let's see that. If you don't, then your inclination to believe that design is true and evolution is false is just that -- your belief. While my inclination to accept the evidence of a scientific experiment is science, not my belief. Because had the Weinstein experiment failed, then evolution of the species, according to my definition would not be proven, at least not by that experiment, and would still remain merely my belief. But, as the experiment succeeded, evolution of the species was proven. And, so it now falls to you to disprove it, by scientific experiment -- if you can.
hey nikkie, I anticipated that you would run into problems in sorting out the crap when doing a little Google search. That's why I recommended you to walk over to the Local Library to get yourself some real quality knowledge. BTW, my check spelling button had stopped on that savvy thing but as I didn't feel the need to waste any more of my time on it, I didn't bother about it. You can't say that I didn't give you my most excellent nononsense advise. nononsense
I have no idea what this means, man. Sorry. You mean the time it takes to click 'change'? Something tells me that you didn't run spell check, bud. Call it a hunch. I'm not going to tear apart that post you made a few pages back, nono. I don't feel the need to give you any more of my time. And btw, 'bother further about it' is a very awkward formulation. Typically, we would say 'I didn't bother about it any further'. PS - I notice a huge change in Z's posts for the past few pages. All of a sudden, every second word isn't stupid. Hmmm... I am collating some recent apparent contradictions in Z's statements and I will post them when I get a few collected. I do notice that Z continues to respond to challenges to his position by cutting and pasting the challenge and then simply substituting his own position for that of his challenger. A very effective technique, actually. There is simply nothing one can say in response! Again, this seems to be the equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I?'
Hey hapa, when you make it over to the mainland, we can "trade 4's" on our Ibanez's! I don't have an S470 though, just a couple of RG's... lefty's. I'm game for some Satriani and Malmsteen!
ask and u'll be served: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16172508 tip: there are no absolute formulas, constants etc outside a particular scope of validity, no matter how wide the scope... let me rephrase... there are no absolutes...