ah yabbies..i get it[quote>>..use it on my farm,when working out a
strategy to deworm sheep>>

oh yes survival of the fit-test worms/or sheep?.
un-natural selection,?..random selection?..reversion to wildtype?

what was the first shh-eep evolved from?
[or the first cray for that matter]...

simple reply two names,what genus became sheep/and which genus became cray?

>>same body parts,brain parts, nervous system,
organs, blood etc...YET ALL apes look more like the other apes..,than any human i ever saw...[course i dont know how hairy you are [lol]:)

>>You claim to have no relationship>>

yep..but i dont look at mans lower'nature'[one third the brain size is enough of a difference]...and without proof of intermediates between us and them,..for me its case closed

>>comparing US, EU and AU crayfish and how they are affected by diseases,due to evolutionary-factors>>

i would have thought that more about disease..,not evolution
evolution reveals a small percentage survive to breed on..[survival of fittest].

>>It is taught to biology graduates,who study for years.>>

in ever more narrow specialised areas...[we are thus guided between the gaps]..like a plant dude[wont look for how his area/speciality] links to sheep..[thus the gaps provide seperation into ever smaller specialities]..eg http://www.nslc.wustl.edu/courses/courses.html

>>For instance,if you are looking for Glyphosate resistance,
spot the mutant from the billions.>>

evolution is survival of fittest...[spotting the lone survivor isnt science its pure chance]..it dont validate evolving it validates survival of the fittest...[evolution speculates;..change of genus]

mutated wheat/soy or whatever..is still wheat or soy or whatever

it hasnt evolved
it has been tested/stressed and selected its surviving offspring..within the same genus as its parents!!

it didnt evolve as evolution says we evolved from apes

>>That is because you have never bothered to attend a university>>

ha this time your error

i haunted the uni liberies searching out the foot-notes from darwins evolution of the species...[then the works of levi/hollander re the wild type then about biological changes,..grafting in developing embryo's..,mutation/sports..etc

[i done the searches...the genus change/evolving into other genus,..simply dont egsist]

NOT ONE GENUS CHANGE is recorded ever.

nice try though

but genus evolving into other genus simply is not there,

NOR HERE...lol

OUG - G'day. I have to compliment you on your serenity and patience.

I wanted to post to you especially OUG to let you know that although I have a very good education myself I disagree with the notion that one needs that to have a legitimate opinion on any of these matters pertaining to what it means to be human.

As I posted before, Darwin himself died an agnostic. He never ceased caring and pondering about what it is beyond a petri dish (or the jungle, perhaps) that makes us the complex beings that we are. If he didn't think that his theory closed the door on God once and for all, then I think it's a pity that others see fit to misuse his good work in such a way.

This writer here sets it all out very well:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html

He writes especially well about the way that the phrase "survival of the fittest" has been misused as Darwin's theory has been applied to
the social sciences. It was about adaptability to changing circumstances, not about the inevitable triumph of bullies. (The phrase originally was Herbert Spencer's anyway.)

Don't worry, although I don't believe we need to take the Bible - esp the OT - literally, I do believe that science will catch up with religion eventually :)

pyncheme thanks for your kind words [i scaned the link, and saved it]

...but i was trying to help yabby out by doing a bit research for him

he has been most patient with me
in trying to explain a thing i just dont get

[me being so dumb and all]

but hey yabby here is what i found so far

from
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/97/1/21

<<The evolution and speciation of Ovis has been problematic, and the problem lies primarily in the measurements used.<< yeah science method is tricky if your making it up as you go[you get mountains of evidence that contradicts other mountains of evidence , its all science but it aint proof[LOL

<<Some investigators use the classical concept of morphologic differences,>>

i supose the best response is a link
[but i suspect its a joke?..too]

http://www.cracked.com/article_16117_6-formerly-kickass-creatures-ruined-by-evolution.html

if it is real it would still be a joke[lol]

<<while others use biological approaches that stress chromosomal and molecular uniqueness...As a result,the taxonomy of Ovis and its relatives remains unsettled.>> lol

<< The results of this study are no less unsettling, but add a new perspective>>

LOL..ie not faulsifyable proof..<<..to the possible >> ..NOTE POSSI-ABLE [is this science PROOF?..<<..evolution of Ovis.>> lol

but there is more

<< The tree topology generated from the mtDNA sequence data confirms that wild sheep have evolved into three major recognizable genetic groups: Argaliforms, Moufloniforms, and Pachyceriforms.>>

so what breed are yours?

more?

<<The evolution of Ovis resulted in three generally accepted genetic groups: Argaliforms, Moufloniforms, and Pachyceriforms.

The Pachyceriforms of the subgenus Pachyceros comprise the thin-horn sheep Ovis nivicola (snow sheep), Ovis dalli (Dall and Stone sheep), and Ovis canadensis (Rocky Mountain and desert bighorn).>>

all the pachyceros seem to be SHEEP[lol]

but they may have come from cattle[just there are few gaps]LOL

but still an interesting read...on how we cant get mad cow disease ,

this is what faith in evolution sets us up for
[i would LOL but it makes me sad
http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html

i guess im glad im too ignorant to 'get' evolution(LOL)

Ah Pynchme, how sweet of you to stick up for a fellow believer. Now of course
you two can start squabbling if the Koran or Bible are really God’s word, for
they can’t be both. Then you can start squabbling with all the various cults,
sects, and other interpretations of a variety of holy books, to see who is right
in their interpretation. Good luck!

Given that UOG still has a problem accepting that the heart is a pump and
little more, I am not about to go on any goose chase for any information
that he might request, for its not worth the bother. For if even this kind
of basic stuff does not sink in, nothing ever will. I’ve been debating on
forums for far too long, to be a sucker lol.

UOG, so because your brain is larger then other species of our great ape
family, that means you cannot possibly be related, you must be related
to angels! ROFL

You remind me of the first Europeans, who came across pygmies,
or just recently in the Congo civil war, when some Bantu claimed
that pygmies were subhuman, and that their flesh contained magical
powers, so they were eaten. One thing we know is how easily humans
can delude themselves.

I actually came across a book today, which I have not yet read, but
will order. It was written in 2004 by Dawkins and sounds like
it will explain to you in lay terms what we know and don’t know
about our origins.

Its even discussed on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor's_Tale

It sounds to me as if your genus problem is merely one of you
not understanding classification rules. But comfort yourself,
your ancestors are from the same hominid family as chimps :)

Anyhow, Dawkins is clearly more qualified to discuss these things
then I am, so you are free to read his works. Taxonomy is not my
area of expertise, so I will let those who know something about it,
discuss it.

But then I doubt if you are interested in Dawkins, it must be
angels that are the-real-relatives-lol.

Yabby: <"Ah Pynchme, how sweet of you to stick up for a fellow believer. Now of course you two can start squabbling if the Koran or Bible are really God’s word, for they can’t be both. Then you can start squabbling with all the various cults, sects, and other interpretations of a variety of holy books, to see who is right
in their interpretation. Good luck!">

Yes OUG - there you are being gracious again.

Yabby you'd probably be surprised at the commonalities between most religions and in the experiences reported by a wide variety of people across the globe and across time.

One mountain top; many paths :)

pyncheme as yabby points out we of course will think differently,i put it different,but in the difference point out the same concept one god

[like i think of god as like water and religions like wells rivers streams and rain]..we all tap into the one source[even then all rivers drain into the same seas and oceons,in the end

all religions tap into the same source and in the end unite into one huge body,even if unseen in underground streams..[but then i have had too much time to think about it..[lol]

but to yabby...[presumably going to read the god delusion by dickkk dorkins[who is trying to muddy the waters because he is an admitted eugenicist]
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4783/

but yabby knows what he wants to read[and spend his money on]

i believe he knows god in his heart..[just not in his mind yet..[and who knows maybe by listening to a nutter like dawkins can see through the evil this man seeks to release on us mere apes..[to dork-kins-'superior-mind'...hinking himself the god of atheism]

we know god works in mysterious ways,..but we all have freewill

below quote extracted from
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4980

Dawkins’ book confirms my analysis of evolution as pseudo-religion. His secular humanism has quasi-religious characteristics.]

We publish here two of the hostile feedbacks, with responses from Jonathan Sarfati..The first is from Patrick W of the United Kingdom, who regales us with a litany of criticisms(all thoroughly addressed in our Q&A index)....Included among his criticisms are ones arising from a misunderstanding of the role of axioms in assessing competing historical scenarios.

The second is from Ben L, also from the UK who feels that the way we treated Dawkins in our review was biased.

He may be surprised to find that we agree!..But is bias bad?...Read our response to learn how to rebut the accusations of bias and intolerance,extremism,etc.)...which are constantly being made against Christians...And note that neither correspondent demonstrated the slightest error in our review!

We also publish a favorable response from a reader who appreciated our exposure of Dawkins’ fallacy,

Truth is independent of what you want it to be