On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
<
drose...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 17, 3:55 pm, Loirbaj <
Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> You still haven't acknowledged your mistake. Marine mammals
>never lost their ability to drink fresh water. Therefore, the answer
>to your rhetorical question about when the "mammal stopped drinking
>fresh water" is never.
> Your original question was "when did the wolf or bearlike or
>cowlike animal decide to start drinking salt water and stop drinking
>fresh water.
> The answer you were given is "never". No mammilian ancestor of
>any marine mammal has "decided" to stop drinking fresh water. The
>ability of all marine mammals to drink fresh water makes the answer to
>your question, never. Yet, you have never acknowledged that your
>question had been adequately answered by "evolutionists".
> You have pointed out that some marine mammals have started to
>drink salt water. This does not change the answer, since no marine
>mammal has decided to stop drinking fresh water. The sea otter drinks
>salt water in the wild when it can't find any other source of water.
>However, the sea otter drinks fresh water in captivity. Obviously, sea
>otters have not decided to stop drinking fresh water.
> You can't escape acknowledging your mistakes by posting new
>threads. You keep on starting new threads. However, I am not going to
>waste time searching through old threads. Instead, I will start with a
>reminder of your mistakes which you still haven't acknowledged in an
>old thread. Then, I will address the new issue.
>> Charles Darwin claimed that the domesticated
>> chicken derives from the red jungle fowl, but new
>> research now shows that the wild origins of the
>> chicken trace instead to the gray jungle fowl.
> However, it is still a jungle fowl.
> I am not even sure that the red fowl is considered a different
>species than the gray fowl. Maybe the red/gray is just a polygenetic
>trait, like white/brown skin in humans. You consider fruit flies the
>same species even when they can't cross breed. In the same sense, a
>gray fowl is the same species as a red fowl.
> I suspect the two varieties of jungle fowl, red and gray,
>overlap. Or there may be no genetic separation at all. There is no
>geographical or genetic separation between the two foxes. You put a
>silver fox in the sun, and it turns red! Just like there are no pink
>flamingos. A pink flamingo is one which has had a large amount of wild
>shrimp, which contain carotene. A pink flamingo without wild shrimp is
>a gray flamingo. Or what about brown and blue eyed humans.
> According to your logic, they are all fowl. No fundamental
>change has occurred.
>> Darwin, while never doing any actual science of
>> his own, had cadged information from breeders.
> You, never doing science on your own, accept "answersingenesis"
>with no question.
> You are tied with Ray Martinez for least skeptical Creationist.
>However, take heart. You are catching up to Ray.
>> His confident claims of 'chicken evolution' now
>> crumble into dust, with the rest of his 'Theories.
> You are still clinging to this memorized theory that
>"evolutionists say that the ancestor of the whale decided to stop
>drinking fresh water." Since whales haven't lost their ability to
>drink fresh water, your theory crumbles in the dust.
> If there is a vote to be taken, then that is the category that I
>choose. How many out there think of Loirbaj as the most "queer-
>sounding" Creationist on the Creationist and Atheist forums?
"He" isn't a creationist. "He" is a bunch of trolling kiddies from AUK
tossing out bait and getting bites from all sorts of people who should
know better.