Evolution True or False?

[Tom]

The evidence for is ofcourse overwhelming but its allways interesting to hear views to the contrary.

well? have you evolved ... punk...

[Mr Sleep]

Well here is a link to a thread that featured me(badly)and Waverly arguing about Evolution.

Sleep on a loosing Streak - Theological

[Tom]

well if Gwalchmai and waverly couldnt convince you - what chance stand I.

But there are no specifik arguements here yet or has everybody certainly become rational?

[Mr Sleep]

None of the powerhouses of debate are around at the moment, and your topic is extremely ambiguous, post some thoughts of your own on the subject, and you might get some replies.

[Tom]

ambiguous? erm ok.

the general theory of evouloution that darwin first dicoverd/invented. is it true or is it false?

ok - but i dont have the time to post anything right now - but i will get back to you.

[nael]

a lot of people make a distinct separation between micro and macro evolution.
micro- the changes within a gene pool to change oen species.
macro - the development of whole new species from previous ones...such as man from monkey.

there is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, the best of which being a species of moth in london that used to be predominantly a light colour, but due to the industrial revolution, the occassional dark variety was now able to hide better against the stained smoke stacks, and eventually there were no more of the light ones.

on the other side, there is no actual evidence, just speculation for macro evolution. there has never been any intermediary fossils to show where one species was changing.

[Word]

Macro evolution is only the product of many, many micro evolutions. Its not like something jumped up on two legs all of a sudden. One animal learned how to balance it and had success with so other animals over time developed it. If there is proof of micro evolution is that not proof for macro. Besides what do you mean the are no bones of apes changing to humans. what about Homo Erectus, Homo Africanus, and Neanderthals.

[Happy Evil]

True

[Word]

@ Happy Evil did you get your signature from a SNL scit with Phil Hartman as Frank sinatra and Sting as Bill Idol?

[ThorinOakensfield]

If i lived in Kansas evolution would be false but i don't so its true.

[GrimReaper]

Quote:

Originally posted by nael: <STRONG>a lot of people make a distinct separation between micro and macro evolution. micro- the changes within a gene pool to change oen species. macro - the development of whole new species from previous ones...such as man from monkey. there is plenty of evidence for micro evolution, the best of which being a species of moth in london that used to be predominantly a light colour, but due to the industrial revolution, the occassional dark variety was now able to hide better against the stained smoke stacks, and eventually there were no more of the light ones. on the other side, there is no actual evidence, just speculation for macro evolution. there has never been any intermediary fossils to show where one species was changing.</STRONG>

Actually, there is proof of macro evolution, though to a lesser extent than monkey to man. Example, there are two different species of squirrel located on either side of the Grand Canyon. It has been proven that those two species evolved from one species of squirrel. They are both still squirrels but they are different species.

[nael]

has an actual fossil record been established for the common ancestor for the squirrels? being separated by somethign geographical, such as the grand canyon, automatically distinguishes species.
take darwin's island, tons of finches, that, in theory, should have come from a common ancestor, but there is no proof of this common ancestor.

[GrimReaper]

Quote:

Originally posted by nael: <STRONG>has an actual fossil record been established for the common ancestor for the squirrels? being separated by somethign geographical, such as the grand canyon, automatically distinguishes species. take darwin's island, tons of finches, that, in theory, should have come from a common ancestor, but there is no proof of this common ancestor.</STRONG>

I haven't done much research into the topic, but this example came from the mouth of a Christian biology teacher and she said it was proven, and I don't think she would lie to help evolution.

[nael]

creationism and evolution don't have to be exclusive from one another.
even stephen hawking believes there has to be a god out there, more like aristotle's unmoved mover, rather than a judeochrostian ideal...but still.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by nael: <STRONG>creationism and evolution don't have to be exclusive from one another. even stephen hawking believes there has to be a god out there, more like aristotle's unmoved mover, rather than a judeochrostian ideal...but still.</STRONG>

@Nael, Creationism isn't simply a recognition of any god, or even a Christian god. It flat out denies that there was life on Earth before the 5000+ year period stated in a literal fashion in the bible.