09-29-2007, 11:57 PM
Its a couple webpages long but its worth a read.
09-30-2007, 12:08 AM
It defines microevolution, but it is somewhat unclear as to how can one conclude that many microevolutions will result in the transformation of 1 specie into another. Even looking at the fossil data, you just see data. With such long periods of time, it is still assumptious that one turned into another through alot of microevolutionary procedures to produce a macroevolution. Their is also the mix up of transition fossil, as this is just a label and not a scientific fact that it is a creature that is indeed a half-way specie (the only ones ever to exist were deemed fake AFAIK). Remember, similarity in no way is evidence for macroevolution, the process itself has no scientific basis that similar things must be from one another through evolution - Rather its a theory to explain how X went to Y.Reply
It also uses the human offsprings as examples. But I don't see the relevance of this to evolution, because do you believe humans can evolve into a different specie? I am not talking sub-specie/variations, but a different specie altogether?
Even if you did, through what scientific observation of the process (natural selection-->macroevolution, via microevolution or not) do you conclude this by?
10-02-2007, 06:30 AM
I strongly suggest you read the link and it should give you a good idea who things are classified and why it is used to support certain theories.Reply
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.