OUG: :science method has NEVER recorded nor evolved an evolution"

Wrong again:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118759429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Dear David F, could you please explain what you mean by literal belief. The reason I ask this is because I have a personal relationship with God the Holy Spirit, 3rd person in the "trinity" {mans word to explain Father,Son, and Holy Spirit] and his job is to glorify the son, to bring conviction never condenmnation to a lost and dying people,to teach and reveal the truth. and I know without him I can never see the wood for the trees as the bible is a very dry history book, but with him it becomes the living word for man. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that procedes from the mouth of God . And I don't know what you mean by literal belief .

UOG...you obviously havent liked any of the replies here, why dont you scoot on over to some of the science forums and pose your question there?

I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins Science Forum as there are a lot of actual scientists there willing to debate your question. I wont give you a link as you don't seem to like them, but I'm sure you're capable of searching a little.

Personally I thought Foxy got it right when she said...

"What I don't understand is - if you have a strong faith,
and no matter what anyone says you're not going to
listen anyway, - why do you insist on being provided with
proof for the theory of evolution?

What's the point to it all"

I'm going to move along now, there is nothing else to see here.

Cheerio UOD and good luck in your quest, keep on demanding answers that make you feel comforted, may it be supremely fruitful for you....

..>>Wrong again:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118759429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Posted by Bugsy..<<
dear bugsy
please explain again

ps you link needs a cookie[what proof in a locked link?]
[but this is a common teqnique of the deception debate]

[if there is no proof you can read
that isnt any real proof [right]

you cant explain your theory
neither can the link

[if i linked to these words via a 'link'
[how could you tell AS A SURITY]
they are the words i wrote]?
links can prove nothing
AT LEAST put a sample your proof on these pages please

thus i asked people to explain the theory HERE
,not on any link

as no one has tried to logiclly explain the root of the evolutionary tree , nor name one evolution scientificlly initiated and recorded

conveniantly your link allows you to not name this beastie

even in four posts by one poster only posting re his honours
[in an unmamed field of the arts?
from an un named institute ,and asking set up type questions to distract the question into a debait

wow thats explaining things[not]

so go ahead and be smug
no attempt to explain THE THEORY has been attempted here
we can thus presume it isnt ABLE to be faulsified

yes it is un known

so stop saying its science
its a theology#[in the realm of philosophy[belief]
not science

if science it be
please explain it here and now

thus
for if when you are asked then
and there to explain
you had some time to prepare your replie

look bro at least name the beastie
let me explain it away
[or allow it to be judged][here on these pages]

OUG, I can't help it if you can;t understand whatthey have written.

From the Link:

<<Origins, establishment and evolution of new polyploid species: Senecio cambrensis and S. eboracensis in the British Isles
RICHARD J. ABBOTT*1 and ANDREW J. LOWE

Two new polyploid species of Senecio have originated in the British Isles in recent times following hybridization between native S. vulgaris (2n = 40) and introduced S. squalidus (2n = 20). One of these is the allohexaploid S. cambrensis (2n = 60), the other is the recombinant tetraploid S. eboracensis (2n = 40). We review what is known about when and how each species originated, and their reproductive isolation from parents due to high selfing rates. We also review evidence that suggests S. cambrensis may have undergone rapid genome evolution since its origin, and comment on the risks of extinction to each species due to chance factors operating during the early establishment phase. The discovery of both species soon after their origin provides an unparalleled opportunity to examine two different but related forms of speciation following hybridization between the same parent species. Further detailed study of the ecology and genomics of S. cambrensis and S. eboracensis will help improve our understanding of the process of polyploid speciation in plants.>>

In very simple terms, these guys found a new species of weed that was formed from the hybridisation of two separate species of plants. These parental species of plants even had different numbers of chromosomes. These guys took a look at it's biology and ecology and found that they didn't or couldn't interbreed with either of the parental species, but could breed with other plants of it's own species. Thus, it is a new species and evolved very recently (S. squalidus was only introduced to Britain about 300 years ago). Speciation (or "macroevolution" to you) has been observed.

UOG

Many people here have provided thoughtful, considered responses to your questions regarding evolution.

Do you consider yourself so far above everyone else here that you do not have to consider what has been kindly provided to you?

As Foxy said, there doesn't seem any true purpose to your discussion thread if you aren't even interested in any of the answers.

There is a very easily observable example of evolution over a very short span of years, this is the ability of bacteria to develop immunity to anti-biotics.

Please read and consider:

"Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance:


Forty or fifty years ago, thanks to antibiotics, scientists thought medicine had all but eradicated infectious agents as a major health threat. Instead, the past two decades have seen an alarming resurgence of infectious diseases and the appearance of new ones.

Today, the AIDS virus, tuberculosis, malaria, diarrheal diseases and other infectious agents pose far greater hazards to human existence than any other creatures.

This upsurge of infectious disease is a problem we have unwittingly created for ourselves. The rise of rapid, frequent, and relatively cheap international travel allows diseases to leap from continent to continent. Inadequate sanitation and lack of clean drinking water are another factor. A third is the "antibiotic paradox" -- the overuse of the "miracle drugs" to the point that they lose their potency.

Whenever antibiotics wage war on microorganisms, a few of the enemy are able to survive the drug. Because microbes are always mutating, some random mutation eventually will protect against the drug. Antibiotics used only when needed and as directed usually overwhelm the bugs. Too much antibiotic use selects for more resistant mutants. When patients cut short the full course of drugs, the resistant strains have a chance to multiply and spread.

..... Every time antibiotics are used unnecessarily, they add to the selective pressure we are putting on microbes to evolve resistance. Then, when we really need antibiotics, they are less effective.

While drug companies race to develop new antibiotics that kill resistant microbes, scientists are urging patients and doctors to limit antibiotic use."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html