That and becuase you know evolution isnt a species turning into another existing species. Tulip to Fern isnt Evolution, its some weird Biotanical Alchemy, prolly featured in the bible somewhere.
Evolution from ape to man didn't happen in a single step, according to theory. It happened in a many sequance of steps, the study of macro evolution could be considered an observance of these steps, instead of the overall evolution of a single organism.
If your close minded, say so, and we can just write you off as such
If you're going to use your own special definition of macro-evolution, perhaps you shouldn't make claims about the real thing. It only confuses and misleads people.
I know that interspecies mixing, breeding, and subsequent segregation along with more breeding will result in unique strains of various species'. That's obvious (see beetle images).
What I don't believe is that the beetle came from a mayfly, or vice-versa.
Now I'm confused as to what you believe Evolution is. If what Heir said: is true, then how does it work? I was under the impression that Evolution says that everything came from a single pool of slime several billion years ago, became a single-celled organism, and then sexed up with some other single-celled organism, created a dual cell organism, or something, and then slowly turned into moss, or something of that nature, which then turned into a bug, which turned into a lizard... etc etc.
Say I had this four legged creature, looks like a dog, has no hair. None of its kind ever had hair, geneticaly they cant grow hair. We move north, our animal has babies, those babies spread out in the area. over 250 years, those babies have babies, and so on and so forth. Over the course of this time the genetics of a few births include genes for hair growth where they once did not. Now, not only does this not happen randomly, it happens reproduceably across the area where we live. After so much time the animals are adapting to the enviroment.
This is an example of Enviromentally induced macro-evolution
Now say a few hundred thousand years we look at this breed of animal living in the north, has long shaggy hair, and all those special adaptations required to live in a hostile cold enviroment. Then our archielogists discover the bones of an animal in the south that is actually the original ancestor of said species. The two species from then and now are so completely different from hundreds of years of macro evolutions one is considered a completely different species from the other.
This is to illustrate your point. A single macro evolution can create a new species, but to the ignorant, its not until things become in your face obvious before those macro evolutions equate to a new species.
Kas, let's not beat around the bush here. You are on a different frequency from everyone else in terms of science, so don't bullshit around with "needing more proof". Others start nothing or from what we have learned from the study of the universe, but you start from a set of assumed truths are all religious in nature. Meaning that anything that conflicts with your theological dogma, no matter how well proven, you will not believe. Unless Jesus comes and specifically tells you evolution is real you will not believe it. So don't come forward this this horseshit ridiculous notion of your own fairness and impartiality with regards to all theories.
Don't say you're open to the theory of evolution if more proof is provided, or that you think creationism is the well-proven theory, or that in your informed judgement (the expert credibility of which is hardly fucking astronomical) Darwinism just wrong. None of those things are even remotely true. Certainly most of all don't accuse others of being closed-minded towards your own ideas. You have one problem alone with Darwin's theories, and that is that they conflict with a strict fundamentalist asinine interpretation of Genesis. The prevailing beliefs in the scientific community about how our world came to be -- evolution and the big bang theory -- start in a vaccuum, which is how the study of the universe is supposed to take place.
You and your ilk's so-called "study of the universe" takes place beginning from an absolute faith what you have read in the Bible: that God made the world 6000 years ago and everything on it, including the bloody unicorns. And if you stare at the universe absolutely certain that everything you will find will say that the Bible is right, goddamnit if you won't find proof that the Bible is right. But that's not how science works, Kas. I'm sorry to say but everytime faith is imposed on science the findings are always wrong, wrong and wrong.
The idea that you would even argue that creationism is scientifically valid is horseshit when you consider that the centerpiece of your vaunted theory is the most scientifically illogical, comically ridiculous figure since Santa Claus. Believe in what you want. If theologically you want to argue that God is real, have at it. But don't drag theology into science. There is a reason they call science "science" and not "the family fun god and Jesus hour". Science is a discipline just like theology and philosophy and art and music. It has specific boundaries that simply do not include preexisting beliefs and theological assumptions.
If you want your beliefs taught in school, fine. In fact I want your beliefs taught in school. And Aquinas' and even Augustine's, too. Contact your local congressman and tell him you want a new course added. It will be called "Modern Christian Philosophy" and it will go into the humanities department or the theology department, or what have you. But if you want to argue theories that have no scientific basis, keep them out of the science classroom.
Someone mentioned something earlier about me being closed minded. I would argue that everyone is closed minded. If you're not biased towards one set of ideals you would have a pretty shaky foundation, because you would be bouncing from one thing to another (grass is greener, and all that).
Yes, I'm a biased against Evolution. But then, most of you are quite biased against Creationism as well.
Heir, thanks for the explanation. I don't believe it happened that way, but it makes sense within the parameters.
Actually, a great many states require that both theories be taught with fairness and equality. Unfortunately, this is almost never done, and very rarely does someone take action to ensure that it is.
It's like gun control. We have the laws, but no one is enforcing them.
That's because to accept creationism, you have to first accept that there's an Almight God spying on you and if you say "Jesus!" when you stub your toe you're going to hell...
