I find Science to be just as much at odds with things as Theologians

And you are just now realizing this sharp?

Wouldn't that only further serve to substantiate the process of natural selection? If an animal (or insect) or reptile or fish, has an adaptive advantage and its environment does not change, why should it? The same thing occurred with sharks. They barely changed from an evolutionary standpoint because they are perfectly adapted. They swam, they ate, they made little sharks.

Army Ants Have Defied Evolution For 100 Million Years
ScienceDaily (May 9, 2003) — ITHACA, N.Y. -- Army ants, nature's ultimate coalition task force, strike their prey en masse in a blind, voracious column and pay no attention to the conventional wisdom of evolutionary biologists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also:
Plants & Animals
Insects and Butterflies
Invasive Species
Evolutionary Biology
Animals
Nature
Trees
Reference
Fire ant
Ant
Seed predation
Cretaceous
The common scientific belief has been that army ants originated separately on several continents over millions of years. Now it is found there was no evolution. Using fossil data and the tools of a genetics detective, a Cornell University entomologist has discovered that these ants come from the same point of origin, because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit

Hey Krimsa , what's up

found the site billy mentioned interesting am looking at it now, lots of information.

try to talk more later, have company and am just playin around on the computer a bit here and there.

later all.

Hey Sharp. Yeah thanks for that site Jeremy. Really cool! Do you think it might soon become the "Fact of Evolution"?

Sharp I wasnt certain if you actually read this article before posting it as supporting your position in some respect? It certainly does not. This is an excerpt.


New Ant Species Discovered In The Amazon Likely Represents Oldest Living Lineage Of Ants

ScienceDaily (Sep. 16, 2008) — A new species of blind, subterranean, predatory ant discovered in the Amazon rainforest by University of Texas at Austin evolutionary biologist Christian Rabeling is likely a descendant of the very first ants to evolve.

The new ant is named Martialis heureka, which translates roughly to "ant from Mars," because the ant has a combination of characteristics never before recorded. It is adapted for dwelling in the soil, is two to three millimeters long, pale, and has no eyes and large mandibles, which Rabeling and colleagues suspect it uses to capture prey.

The ant also belongs to its own new subfamily, one of 21 subfamilies in ants. This is the first time that a new subfamily of ants with living species has been discovered since 1923 (other new subfamilies have been discovered from fossil ants).

Rabeling says his discovery will help biologists better understand the biodiversity and evolution of ants, which are abundant and ecologically important insects.

"This discovery hints at a wealth of species, possibly of great evolutionary importance, still hidden in the soils of the remaining rainforests," writes Rabeling and his co-authors in a paper reporting their recent discovery in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Rabeling collected the only known specimen of the new ant species in 2003 from leaf-litter at the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária in Manaus, Brazil.

He and his colleagues found that the ant was a new species, genus and subfamily after morphological and genetic analysis. Analysis of DNA from the ant's legs confirmed its phylogenetic position at the very base of the ant evolutionary tree.

Ants evolved over 120 million years ago from wasp ancestors. They probably evolved quickly into many different lineages, with ants specializing to lives in the soil, leaf-litter or trees, or becoming generalists.

"This discovery lends support to the idea that blind subterranean predator ants arose at the dawn of ant evolution," says Rabeling, a graduate student in the ecology, evolution and behavior program.

Rabeling does not suggest that the ancestor to all ants was blind and subterranean, but that these adaptations arose early and have persisted over the years.

"Based on our data and the fossil record, we assume that the ancestor of this ant was somewhat wasp-like, perhaps similar to the Cretaceous amber fossil Sphecomyrma, which is widely known as the evolutionary missing link between wasps and ants," says Rabeling.

He speculates that the new ant species evolved adaptations over time to its subterranean habitat (for example, loss of eyes and pale body color), while retaining some of its ancestor's physical characteristics.

"The new ant species is hidden in environmentally stable tropical soils with potentially less competition from other ants and in a relatively stable microclimate," he says. "It could represent a 'relict' species that retained some ancestral morphological characteristics."

I do believe that anyone who believes in the evolution theory is really lost in another world. Nothing ever evolves as such. Evolution is something that was derived by someone who has no real knowlege of sience. Evolution is just a theory, and that is all that it is. Evolution doesn't concur with reality as it is today, and as for faith having no place in the modern world that would be a ludicrus statement with no meaning. Everyone has thier beliefs, and are entitled to them just as I am entitled to mine. It doesn't do any good to argue with anyone who believes in the theory of evolution on account of it has never been documented or proven, but is something that was dreamt up by someone with quite an imagination just like the producers of movies in hollywood. So therefore evolution is non existent.

What cha gonna do about that pesky Neanderthal genome sequence then? That's a biggie. Of course DNA evidence is always less reliable than fables and convoluted 3000 year old creation mythology.

All you have said here is, its wrong and those that believe it are fools. . . .

Not much of an argument. How about you explain some of the observations, discoveries, and facts that back up evolution, and support those observations with your own concept of how those things came to be?

I have been waiting for a creationist to even try . . . just try. Ive stated it before the flying spaghetti monster does a better job of explaining it then creationist do . . . .

There is no science "against" evolution. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Any who claim otherwise have an agenda. I'm a scientist and will happily shut down any bull**** against evolution.

This is total nonsense.

The Theory of Evolution is irrefutable fact!

Well not really but I just enjoy saying that because it gets the hackles of the fundamentalist Christians up.

There is no supportive evidence to substantiate Creationism and it is based on a nearly 3000 year old Creation Mythology. That is the anthropological reality of the situation.

Well Evolution is Fact, the details of how things evolve over time is still being worked on.

Yeah. Thats actually a joke. Ever watch that show "The Simpsons"? They had an episode once and Ned Flanders (that religious one) is upset because the local museum of natural history has this huge banner up announcing their new Evolutionary Science display and it reads "Evolutionary Theory Irrefutable Fact!" The Christians are none too pleased with this.

hahaha NED, thats classic! I am going to have to watch that one.

afraid your wrong, i've found science articles both for and against. Unless they put all those initials by their names just to look good

That might be true Sharp though sometimes I find those supposed "scientists" and their credentials questionable at best. At least from what has been posted thus far. Be that as it may, it would behoove you to mention the flip side to that argument wouldn't it? There is clearly an element of growing religious support for the Theory of Evolution as demonstrated by many progressive Catholics.

I agree 100%, There are just as many opinions and differences among Theologians and Students of Scripture as there are among scientist. no doubt about that.

Unless you intend to back up your claims by linking the articles, don't post your drivel.

Degrees mean little. Many people have an agenda which lead them to intellectual dishonesty.

Show me evidence arguing evolution is wrong. The only arguments made amongst scientists, with regards to evolution, pertains to the mechanisms driving change.

No respectable "biologist" would ever attempt to publish "science" arguing evolution is false.