Hah true.  Contraction probably will start... as it's the most logical thing as far as the univserse being "self renewing" but I felt like being optimistic.

I don't know how it'd "feel" bad though... well until another galaxy crashed into ours anyway.

First, I'm not easily offended and second, you are always very polite man. And you have your analysis right about me roughly speaking.

What I would like to know about dogs in those 13,000 years is how much they have changed genetically. Each mammal has rufly 50,000 genes and each gene code for a protein. Now, typically just the existing variants of each gene accounts for the differences we see between individuals, like length, hair color, eye color etc. But in dogs I can imagine that also small new mutations in some genes determine some specific and unique characterics for some breeds, for example the chinese naked dog having almost no fur, mutations that were not present in the original dog/domesticated wolf gene pool 13,000 years ago.

What I wonder though, and this should be able to be analysed on a statistical level actually, is if there's completely new genes underway in some dog breeds? I mean there should be at least a few completely new genes, because those 13,000 years with extremely varied environmental and selection pressure on the gene pool (and many of them being isolated from each other) are magnitudes more powerful than it ever is in nature, and should translate to 100's of thousands of years or even millions of years of 'natural' evolution (if we compare to the 'normal' evolution rate typically, according to neo-Darwinism).

Slimebeast according to this article, wolves have even received a new gene from dogs:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40621/title/Dog_gene_heeds_call_of_the_wild

Actually it's not a new gene, it's just a new variant of a fur coding gene which has the mutation for black color that wolfes got from shepherd dogs or something. (corresponds to my example with the "post-13000 years" point mutations giving the Chinese naked dog almost no fur).

Thats the Liger, I watched in discovery or animal planet that they are big because they breed  male tiger with a female lion because its the female tiger and the male lion that have genes that stop the growing at certain age, so this is not the case with the Liger, it never stops growing. Dont know if I have it rght with the male tiger and female lion, but thats the idea.

Yeah, i've read that before.

I want to see Red Wolves are supposed to be a hybrid offshoot of Coyotes and Grey Wolves as well... though i know that's been debated in the past.

Haha, you don't need to tell me about this kind of stuff Kasz, I'm pretty nifty when it comes to space.

Anyway, young Earth creationists assert that the actual light is slowing down. Light is a physical constant, it travels at just under 300,000Km/s through a vacuum. It always has done, we have no evidence of varying speeds at all in these conditions. Light is made up of photons, the carriers of electromagnetism, and as I'm sure you know, have no mass. A photon travels at 300,000Km/s, because it is massless the only thing that could increase that speed is if the actual laws of physics themselves have changed to allow them to move faster, a change in mass or energy wouldn't speed it up. The chances of light slowing down would be so remote that it wouldn't even register to me.

As for the expansion of the Universe being faster than the speed of light, I don't think that supports their argument at all. Galaxies that move away faster than the speed of light from us do so because dark energy is adding more acceleration to the expansion of the Universe. Although we know very little about dark energy right now, in three years we should know a lot more hopefully. But I don't see how it would support the idea that light was once faster than it is today I'm afraid.

I found a video that uses a great analogy to explain why macro and micro evolution are an illusion and it is essentially all part of the same mechanism...

Although the fact at the end about the scientists is a bit dubious, I think he meant evolutionary biologists.

They are still the same species. The only way they become a new specie is if they differ to the point where they could never breed again.

Take the horse and donkey for instance, even though they can breed to make a mule, they are different species due to the fact that mules cannot breed.

It wouldn't completly.  It really depends how the universe expands though.  Like imagine the universe was a pokadotted tabelcloth... with the dots being planets.

Now lets say an ant is on one dot crawling to another at a consistant speed... but then the tablecloth is opened up more, increasing the distance between them.

That ant is still moving at the same speed, but since it takes longer to get to our dot then it did in the past.... it gives the illusion of it "slowing down".

If you thought earth was created 6,000 years ago.  One could argue that we were previously caught up in such a "dark energy" wave but now are out of it... so that light that is reaching us now, that is more then 6,000 years away... used to be much closer then 6,000 years away... but the earth was caught up in a wave that moved it say 8,000 light years in what would take light to move 2,000 light years. (made up numbers for an eaxmple.)

It does seem unlikely though i mean light does "slow down" or has the illusion of slowing down I should say, but that's in a situation where space is contraced, like with strong gravity fields and the like.

If anything the speed of light might have increased if space really is like a tabelcloth and there is only so much of it. Since as space would stretch it would look as if the speed of light was increasing.  Though really it would just be moving the same speed along a medium that was stretched.

Wait... how does light slowing down help their arguement again?  Thinking about it logically... that light is speeding up seems like the arguement they'd want to make.