|
funkpunk37 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
believing in micro evolution doesnt mean you have to believe in macro evolution even though i do. what happens in macro evolution is alot slower because micro evolution takes place first and over time it becomes more apparent in macro evolution.
Captrubarb (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The reason I don't accept macro evolution is because you just don't see it in nature. If macro evolution is true, there should be thousands and thousands of transitional species found, but there are not. There are too many missing links, and of those missing links found, they are often created from just a couple of bones. It's one thing to say changes occur within a species, it's another to say a fish could eventually develop arms & lungs, or reptiles feathers. Where can that be seen in nature?
MTheoryGuy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This was a very informative little video. I already knew the big ideas behind cells but slightly more in depth looks at the subject like this are eye-openers. Nice video.
richi1173 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This is best illustrated by the development of the Romantic languages. After the fall of Rome, people who spoke Latin settled in different parts of Europe: some in Iberia, others in Galia, while many stayed in Italy. Subtle changes in Latin were introduced by the local population - from people making up words in conversations and native language words being introduced. After 1000 years of day-to-day subtle and accumulative jibberish, you have Spanish, French, and Italian.
richi1173 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If you accept micro evolution, you have to accept macro evolution. If you think macro-evolution implies a literal jump - like from one generation to another, a species becomes another, then you are mistaken. It takes many, many instances of micro-evolution from one generation to another before the species branches off.Expelled is really a sad attempt to debunk evolution. For example, Ben Stein can't comprehend the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis- lightning stricking a mud puddle
Captrubarb (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
True, many Christians can be evolutionists but more often than not it's atheism that drives evolution(watch "Exspelled"you'll see what I mean). Regardless of what the Bible says, I would say "macro" evolution (the jump between species, opposed to "micro" within a species which is proven true) is bad science. there are also problems in saying the Bible promotes evolution, considering it explicitly mentions days (morning and night); there are other inconstancies as well but i'm out of space
Captrubarb (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
True, true, there are many christians that are evolutionists, however more often than not it's atheism that drives evolution (watch "Expelled" you'll see what I mean), regardless while "micro" evolution is true "macro" evolution, the jump between species, has many holes in it scientifically speaking.
richi1173 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hey before you go on, do not confuse evolution with atheism. If you want to know why, just ask the Pope - a "evilusionist". Genesis is very vague on the method God used to propagate life. This method is called evolution and there is overwhelming evidence of it.
richi1173 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Look up the RNA World hypothesis. However, this is not evolution but a different field of biology called abiogenesis.
Tumelon23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
where did that primitive cell come from? |
