Slashdot Mirror
Roadkill Forcing Cliff Swallows To Evolve
sciencehabit writes "Cliff swallows that build nests that dangle precariously from highway overpasses have a lower chance of becoming roadkill than in years past thanks to a shorter wingspan that lets them dodge oncoming traffic. That's the conclusion of a new study based on 3 decades of data collected on one population of the birds. The results suggest that shorter wingspan has been selected for over this time period because of the evolutionary pressure put on the population by cars."
This is a strawman. Not believing in universal common descent is different from not believing in natural selection and (random) mutation. In fact, it was originally theists and Christians even that formulated the idea that natural selection and mutations had a huge influence on our variations. Atheists came up with stuff like acquired traits, which turned out to be wrong. In fact, Darwin turned out to be wrong about just about everything. That atheists attempt to distort history after stealing Christian ideas and pretending it was their own, that it was something UCD and 'atheism' predicts is disingenuous.
"Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."3
Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth."4 He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#On_natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#On_natural_selection
How dishonest of Dawrin. That's how these evolutionists work. Theists have these great epiphanies based on their belief in God and evolutionists steal the idea, refuse to give credit, and act like it is evolution that is what is supported by the evidence.
If you are willing to seriously debate this I am more than willing to debate this. Universal common descent is indefensible in the face of the evidence. But building strawman arguments and just assuming UCD to be true as an argument is just silly. I know these views maybe unpopular and the very judgmental nature of those here will try to discriminate against me for these views. But I am more than willing to defend my views. I say with confidence, universal common descent is absolutely indefensible in the face of the evidence. I am willing to defend that beyond simply making the assumption that UCD is true without any critical thought whatsoever. and deep down no one here will debate me because you know I'm right.
BTW, I am not the author of this site, but I visit this site and read it and post on it from time to time.
http://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/science-and-the-concept-of-god/