discovermagazine.com — Pandas have been ridiculed for their decidedly non-bearlike vegetarian diets, their apparent lack of interest in?and aptitude for?sex, their tendency to spend the majority of their time sitting, eating, scratching, and defecating. These rather "unfit" characteristics have made the giant panda a favorite animal of creationists.
Aug 5, 2008 View in Crawl 4
apokalypsenowAug 6, 2008
"It is presented as fact, not theory."Well, it *is* both a theory (a Scientific Theory, which is a framework for explaining observed phenomena based on a preponderance of evidence and peer review), and an observable, repeatable fact."...speciation beyond the genus level has NEVER been observed nor reproduced."Incorrect - in the foraminiferans, we have a perfect and continuous day-by-day and year-by-year accounting for almost an entire PHYLUM of life. A phylum is a much broader classification than a genus, so your statement is demonstrably false."Thus, the theory of evolution from proto-bacteria to human being is just a theory."There's so much wrong with this statement. For starters, "just a theory" is incorrect.<a class="user" href="http://www.notjustatheory.com">http://www.notjustatheory.com</a>Next, the Theory of Evolution is not about "evolution from proto-bacteria to human beings" - it is about how populations adapt to better fit and compete in their environments through selection pressures acting upon heritable and imperfectly replicating traits. That you take issue with just the "human" branch of evolution demonstrates both a misunderstanding of evolution and a bias on your part.Finally, in light of the evidence I have given you above, this statement based on a false premise.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2008
Its just trying to stay healthy, so it can master its kung fu skills.
p5ychoAug 7, 2008
No, but peaple are !!____This human verification thing will kill digg visitors numbers .....
tempest69Aug 7, 2008
Habitat loss is an environmental pressure... Pandas are a little on the slow side for repopulating as bears go.. And were pretty bad at "pushing the process along". Pandas are more of a learner than an instinct driven bear. If you dont show the pandas the whole courtship process they are going to be socially inept, making breeding a bit less likely in the zoo. Anyway, the kicker with pandas is that they are re-aquiring a niche from the evolutionary past.. so without human intervention,, Pandas could have would up as a "top herbivore", after re-evolving a longer digestive tract. Most predators would leave the panda-spawn alone, as it still has the bear qualities that make it a threat. Allowing the mutant offspring of pandas to move into other niches, displacing fleeter footed large herbivores.Of course they might just have too few generations available to make the leap.. especially with humans mucking about.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2008
lol.... so your penis looks like that? lol
mrsidnetAug 8, 2008
Odd that in 3 million years, they have not evolved a longer digestive system...
Closed AccountAug 8, 2008
I attack your nonsense because it is dishonest and undeserving of anything but ridicule. "Evolutionists" is indeed a false term made up to make evolution look more like a religion than a scientific theory; unfortunately, not everybody is as dim a bulb as you are, and you're really not fooling any of them.1. If creationists (there is no such thing as a "Creation scientist" because "Creation science" is as much a science as astrology) did not believe that organisms changed over time, they wouldn't be creationists! This is not a straw man argument; this is creationists being forced to give ground (conceding that maybe animals do change over time, but definitely not enough to amount to differences in species!) because they have been confronted with irrefutable evidence that they were wrong.2. Dr. Richard Lenski just finished an experiment on cit+ bacteria. You might also look up, say, nylon-eating bacteria, or evolution of infectious viruses and bacteria. You wouldn't know science if it slapped you in the face.3. It's quite simple, dumbass: the work done by men seeking to prove creationism is not scientific by its very nature. Let's treat creationism like a scientific hypothesis, just hypothetically, for a second. What would falsify it? What observation would prove that creationism is false? We know that evolution, as it is a well-supported and respectable scientific theory, could be falsified. We would know something was wrong with the theory if we found a quarterhorse fossilized in the pre-Cambrian strata, or perhaps if we found a Chihuahua fossil reliably dated to the Cretaceous period. No such evidence has surfaced, but it could hypothetically, and that is why evolution is falsifiable. Creationism is a load of s**t that is immune to falsification. The early claims were of a young Earth with all creatures created in their present forms along with the Earth. When geology and biology showed us that both these claims were false, creationists were forced to give ground and admit that the Earth is billions, thousands, of years old - but God still created it! - and animals have been evolving for as long as life has been present on the planet - but God guided it!Back to your question, I would never claim that a creationist is incapable of understanding and practicing science. A creationist is perfectly capable of, say, conducting a physics experiment, or charting the stars. Unfortunately, creationists begin with a conclusion and then search for evidence that can be twisted to fit their preconceived idea, so we don't trust them very much in biology.I also think it's quite cute that you think you know science better than I do when you propose a wholly unscientific and wholly religious hypothesis as absolute truth in place of one of the strongest and best-supported scientific theories the world has ever known. Go back to school and educate yourself, little one. You're deserving of nothing but ridicule.