If the trees were turned black by sulfur dioxide, wouldn't the same happen to the mothsPlus it was pretty disorientating for the moths to BE RELEASED IN THE WILD TO HIDE IN THE DAYTIME WHEN THEY ARE NOCTURNAl! Scientists have only seen a moth that was not rewleased into the wild again land on a trunk two count 'em two. After environmental laws were enforced reduceing sulfur dioxide populations of the "mnelanistic" moth plummeted by up to 80 percent in some areas. Also, the moths natural hiding spot in the canopy under thick twigs is the polar ,opposite of smack dab on a tree trunk so any malnurished and opportunistic blue jay can have a blue plate out in the open moth special

1. Proofread your posts before you post them, please, I cannot stress this enough...

2. No. Unborn moths can't be stained black while still in the eggs, but still the moths were born black.

3. What does any of this really have to do with anything?

As for Pinky's "Argument", I will refute any argument she makes, but all she's said so far has been more or less "No, you're wrong lol because the bible says something different and millions of people have read the bible so it must be true"...

I'm cristian and i believe in evolution and creation, but creation came first to path the way for evolution to take over and shape our world into what it is now. I dont believe in the 'Big Bang'.

Alcar you believe in a species changing, degeneratoring and or adapting this is microev evolving into other species is bullshit. Micro and not macro. remember that, 'cause there is a big diff. Oh, and sorry about all the typos. I just don't want to spend fiv to 50 minutes on a post

has anyone else noticed how Statikk is quick to call some one elses idea(s) bullshit? whilst we are all pretty much willing to hear eachother out first? interesting how blind faith can effect some people..they know there is no REAL proof, so they are constantly on defense, waiting to call some one elses beliefs bullshit...

Statikk, "microevolution" infers that some kind of genetic parameters exist, for which there is no evidence. If you accept the mechanics of microevolution, then what could possibly prevent such changes eventually resulting in a diverse range of species?

Often creationists wrongly assume that what we call a species is a fixed attribute. But species is a word we simply give to a group of animals that share a common genetic pool. It's an established and proven fact that DNA changes all the time. Sexual reproduction allows for a lot of variation in offspring. The basic principles of evolution are as follows:

• Within any population there is variation.
• Not all organisms within a species will reach maturity; many die before they have the chance to reproduce (thus removing their DNA from the genetic pool of the population).
• Those possessing characteristics beneficial to their survival within their environment have an increased chance of reaching maturity and producing offspring (therefore adding their DNA to the genetic pool of the population).
• The offspring will inherit those beneficial characteristics.

Creationists often wrongly believe that if such principles exist, then the whole species must evolve with each other and that no diversity is possible. Evolution relies on the isolation of groups belonging to the same species for them to diversify. There are many examples of this, often observed in birds and fish.

I agree, Disgruntled. The word "Bullshit" is often used as a substitute for actual reasoning. As are the phrases "You're not making any sense" and "You're just making a fool of yourself"...

Sydney, could you illustrate some examples on what you are talking about with the fish and birds? I am sorry about my use of profanity and defensveness. I won't do it again

Certainly Statikk. The most famous example of isolation and evolution are the finches of the Galapagos Islands.

I may not have explained isolation and evolution clearly enough in my previous post. An organism within a population who possesses characteristics beneficial to its survival will have an increased chance of producing offspring who will inherit these characteristics. Such organisms will quickly dominate their gene pool, resulting in the entire species changing with it. Let's say that these changes were happening amongst fish living in a river atop a waterfall. A group of these fish travelled down the waterfall and became isolated from the rest of the group in a deep pool a few miles down. The fish at the top of the waterfall were perfectly suited to their environment, so they didn't change. The fish in the pool below, however, had to change to suit the different environment. Over a long time, the fish in the pool below and the fish at the top of the waterfall had DNA so different that they could no longer mate with each other.

I have no idea why but that sounded like a childrens story. just change a few words and see if you can publish it but....what would be the title.

darwins theory of evolution for the youthfully inclined.

I tried to put it as simply as possible. ;)

Could'nt of said it better myself Syd ;)