Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage.
If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo > Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we > subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. > These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years > of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the > bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same > bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria > was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. > No mutation. > > In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained > resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In > the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species > jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. > > And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population > then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. > Natural selection was clearly not operative here. > > Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on > people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . . . In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses starting 30 million years ago. http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
