Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,238 Year: 5,495/9,624 Month: 520/323 Week: 17/143 Day: 7/10 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 43 of 302 (318498)
06-06-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:07 PM


Great example
No, that is not what I want. What you described with the reptile laying an egg with a bird is the "hopeful monster" theory which some have made after rejecting Darwinism. That is not macroevolution.
What I would mean, by a human from a monkey, is a REAl fossil(s) of this transition, one that is valid and relative. I know you believe evolution takes time and goes in steps. So show me the REAL steps of a monkey turning into a human, or something to the sort.
And no, microevolution does not accumulate to make macroevolution. They are two different things. Microevolution, I like to call it "variations within a kind", is those changes that happen within a kind. Macroevolution, real evolution, is when one kind of an organism evolves into a different one.
Whale evolution is a GREAT place to start.
These things you want to see certainly exist.
Philip D. Gingerich
Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5949 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 53 of 302 (318535)
06-07-2006 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Re: Great example
That does not show macroevolution. And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them. This would only prove the point that creatures can't gain new body parts that are not of their kind.
Evolution has no direction or destination.
Implying that evolution requires gaining legs is simply wrong? It shows a profound lack of understanding of the subject.
Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : I know it's old, but I decided to make it less personal and offensive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:34 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024