Poll: Do you believe in speciation?

[Steven Kyzburg]

No they didn't produce life, the composition of it just changed slightly; invovled electricity to simulate lightening setting thigns i motion if I recall.

In anycase some scientists are beginnign to think that life started around volcanic vents rather than sludge like pools.

Life itself is pretty improbable, apparently the odds of the simpilest amino acid assembling itself without any outside head in teh right order woould be like having a thousand wheeled slot machien wit heach wheel having twenty six different amino acid proteins (or somethign like that but i'm not exaggerating) Imagien how long you'd have to stand there untill you get the right combination.

 

[darklink259]

Not quite life, but semi-cells. http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/photos.htm http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

 

[Thunderhorse31]

No they didn't produce life, the composition of it just changed slightly; invovled electricity to simulate lightening setting thigns i motion if I recall.

In anycase some scientists are beginnign to think that life started around volcanic vents rather than sludge like pools.

Life itself is pretty improbable, apparently the odds of the simpilest amino acid assembling itself without any outside head in teh right order woould be like having a thousand wheeled slot machien wit heach wheel having twenty six different amino acid proteins (or somethign like that but i'm not exaggerating) Imagien how long you'd have to stand there untill you get the right combination.

Have you ever heard of the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator? Using the "infinite monkey theorem" it used a random letter generator where each "monkey" types one letter per second, and the number of monkeys constantly increased (started with 100, then added more to show population growth and procreation, doubling the number of monkeys every few days). The simulator compared the output with the works of Shakespeare, and after a year and a half the longest match was 24 letters from The Second Part of King Henry IV, which took the equivalent of 2,738 trillion trillion trillion monkey years to produce. After a year, the record was over 30 letters, but that took trillions and trillions more monkey years to produce.

That seems to be (personally, anyway) one of the biggest challenges to Darwinism in its purest form - the universe itself isn't big enough or old enough to hold all of the information and specified complexity that we observe today, especially if you claim that all of it arrived through complete random chance.

 

[Xrysthos]

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

That's just another problem. We don't know how the earth was formed, as the big bang makes more or less no sense, and therefore we cannot age the earth. So I'd say maybe in the tens of millions at most, but certainly not billions. I don't have many theories to be believe in, as you may have noticed.

I respect your opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that I believe it's absolute drivel.

Science has decided pretty much exactly how Earth was formed, not to mention that by dating the arrival time of light from the outermost rims of the universe it is possible to date the age of the universe. This puts the universe at 14-15 billion years of age. Stars work like giant fusion reactors. As you might have discovered in high school physics, the elements created in this process were later subjected to fission, creating radioactive isotopes of said elements. These elements decay over time, emitting radioactive particles, leading to a loss of mass, and hence it will over time change to a new element. The time taken for one particle to be emitted, known as the activity, is a constant. This has been certified by looking at the decay rate of elements that decay at a faster rate, but can also be applied to say plutonium, which has a half life of several billion years. This means that the mass of the atom will be reduced by 50% ever x years, x being the half life of the specific element. When you look at radiactive elements enclosed in rocks, this process makes it possible to date the rock with great accuracy. This provides solid evidence that it's been roughly 4 billion years (I'm in no mood to dig out the exact figures) since the Earth cooled sufficiently for rocks to be formed. The fossil record also shows life that dates back 2-3 billion years, further discrediting your opinion. As for the exact age of the Earth, thermal physics (in a somewhat elaborate manner) gives about another billion years (the time it would take to cool an object the size of the Earth off sufficiently for rocks to form at the surface) putting the age of the Earth at roughly 5 billion years old, and not by any standards a few hundred million years.

As for evolution (pardon my somewhat off-topic rant) I believe in it, and if scientific theories and the opinions of the greatest minds on our planet doesn't suffice as proof, I'd say the fossil record speaks for itself and provides rock hard evidence that cannot be countered in any logical fashion.

And even though all the details of the Big Bang theory haven't been discovered, most scientists accept it as the leading theory, and work is being done as we speak at CERN to discover particles that can explain exactly how it happened.

This might be a little long - sorry about that - but at least it conveys my opinions and my points.

 

[ketenol]

I'd like to thank (mostly) everyone who responded. You all have peaked my interests, and alerted me to my lack of knowledge, and for this I thank you. I hope no one thinks less of me after this thread...

If anything i think better of you because you've shown you're willing to learn.

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

Have you ever heard of the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator? Using the "infinite monkey theorem" it used a random letter generator where each "monkey" types one letter per second, and the number of monkeys constantly increased (started with 100, then added more to show population growth and procreation, doubling the number of monkeys every few days). The simulator compared the output with the works of Shakespeare, and after a year and a half the longest match was 24 letters from The Second Part of King Henry IV, which took the equivalent of 2,738 trillion trillion trillion monkey years to produce. After a year, the record was over 30 letters, but that took trillions and trillions more monkey years to produce.

That seems to be (personally, anyway) one of the biggest challenges to Darwinism in its purest form - the universe itself isn't big enough or old enough to hold all of the information and specified complexity that we observe today, especially if you claim that all of it arrived through complete random chance.

Yep, it's in Bill Brysons A Short History Of Nearly Everything, tis a fabulous book; I highly reccomend it.

 

[insanelich]

And even though all the details of the Big Bang theory haven't been discovered, most scientists accept it as the leading theory, and work is being done as we speak at CERN to discover particles that can explain exactly how it happened.

It IS seriously incomplete though, we haven't got half enough data to jot anything down for sure.

Big Bang creating all of the universe? Impossible, according to all we know. Even if it was what happened, it'll still be unscientific because it fails pretty much every step of the scientific method.

Big Bang creating the local part of the universe we can observe? Haven't got a problem with that.

 

[Skeleon]

I'm sure this is just a typo, but I wanted to draw your attention to this:

But for your information a technique called carbon dating can date samples of rock rather "accuratly" (When your looking back by the billions the margin of error get's bigger) Some of the oldest rocks available are tens of billions years old.

Okay, that's possible, might be from outer space or something.

But, back to the bacteria evolving. It took tens of billions of years to go from a simple slow sluggish cell to a cell that could harness light...

That, however, I find hard to believe considering the Earth is about 5 billion years old.
Is there any new evidence on the age of bacteria? Are you saying they found proof of the asteroid-life theory?
Or was that just a typo?

...but the repetitive strain of having to reach up (possibly higher than normal) will select that group of mutations to prevail (since, as the previous poster said, those giraffes will survive more easily than the rest).

That's not what I meant, I'm afraid. You can't change your genes by behavior like neck-straining. It's just that those animals that, by chance, have a longer neck, are more likely to survive than the others with shorter neck. And thus have a higher chance of procreating.
They already have longer necks than the others (like how different humans are different in height or hair colour or whatever), but the one trait, where the neck is longer, proved to be more useful and so prevailed over the short-necked variant.
That's what I meant by "random mutation first, selection second".
The mutation occurs first and then the enviromental influences "decide" which variant is more viable and gets to reproduce more effectively.

You might want to ask your biology teacher, it's not impossible that he's teaching you guys an outdated version of the theory of evolution.
Especially considering some teachers I knew back in high school...

 

[insanelich]

That's not the same thing. Maybe, if a lot of humans did that over a few hundred thousand years, their arms would elongate (for example, our backs straightened in a similar cause of events, or so my bio teacher would have me believe).

Lamarckian evolution, being taught in bio class? Either you've really dozed off and missed half the context, or your teacher should have been fired yesterday.

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

That's just another problem. We don't know how the earth was formed, as the big bang makes more or less no sense, and therefore we cannot age the earth. So I'd say maybe in the tens of millions at most, but certainly not billions. I don't have many theories to be believe in, as you may have noticed.

The Earth is only 10s of millions of years old.
10s of Millions of years old
You really said that.
HELL. FREAKIN'. NO!
Are you saying the Earth was created after the Dinosaurs came about because of 10s of millions of years of evolution?
REALLY?
That's possible to have a species on a planet before it was created? Never knew that.
I knew the Earth was at least 100s of millions years old when I was 4. I studied Dinosaurs, and could recite facts about many of them, name a lot of them, and know what they ate (generalized of course into herbivore, carnivore) so I knew the first dinosaurs were well before 100 million BC. That's like the Jurrasic, which was the second dinosaur period I think. (I stopped studying dinos in Grade 4)

The Earth is at least a billion years old, the universe, from the microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang puts the universe at around 13.7 billion years old.

Grade 9 educations ftw.

You obviously missed the whole point of this thread. I don't believe in many of the "facts" that are taught in the school system. No matter what anyone says, the age of the earth has not yet been proven.

And you sir, completely missed my point.
So let's reiterate shall we?

Fossils have been dated as 100s of millions of years old.
The Earth cannot be less that that if we have found life from that time period.
How does that not make sense?

 

[Steven Kyzburg]

I'm sure this is just a typo, but I wanted to draw your attention to this:

But for your information a technique called carbon dating can date samples of rock rather "accuratly" (When your looking back by the billions the margin of error get's bigger) Some of the oldest rocks available are tens of billions years old.

Okay, that's possible, might be from outer space or something.

But, back to the bacteria evolving. It took tens of billions of years to go from a simple slow sluggish cell to a cell that could harness light...

That, however, I find hard to believe considering the Earth is about 5 billion years old.
Is there any new evidence on the age of bacteria? Are you saying they found proof of the asteroid-life theory?
Or was that just a typo?

...but the repetitive strain of having to reach up (possibly higher than normal) will select that group of mutations to prevail (since, as the previous poster said, those giraffes will survive more easily than the rest).

Thanks, it's a typo coupled with a late night, lots of chemistry coursework and not thinking clearly. Should have said millions.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

And even though all the details of the Big Bang theory haven't been discovered, most scientists accept it as the leading theory, and work is being done as we speak at CERN to discover particles that can explain exactly how it happened.

On that note, Angels & Demons is a fantastic book, I recommend it very highly (moreso than the movie that comes out next week).

 

[Ridonculous_Ninja]

I respect Trivun and Bfuh (I think) for their opinions and bringing up a point I have thought of before, that God is not the omniscient watcher of Earth, because there are billions of billions of planets, and if he (or she) was only interested in one planet, God would not be very all powerful then. I believe if we were a god's creation, then evolution could be a system that was put in place govern ourselves, think of the computer programmer who sits down to make a simulation. Is he going to code everything that is going to happen? No, he puts in some laws and values and lets it run, what comes out is completely up to chance.

On a side note, I think a god that's more like Brahman (if that's spelled wrong Hindus please don't be offended), where everything is part of God, makes more sense. Energy from living creatures can influence the energy of other living things or inanimate objects to change chemically, physically or whatever. Thoughts from humans influence the world around us.
That seems pretty God-like to me.

But that's all slightly off topic so I'll let the discussion recommence now.

 

[Thanatos34]

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

Well you have to keep in mind the enormous amount of time this all took place in. it is such a long time thats its hard for us to really conceptualize 5 million years or longer, what do you think about when thinking that 100 million years have passed? That doesnt mean anything to most of us. So what exactly are you looking for? There really isnt many other theories, youre free to go with creationism but that involves believing an all powerful mad scientist created everything with a snap of the fingers.

I don't believe in Creationism actually, but I also don't believe that just because evolution is practically the only other option should mean that I have to accept it as fact. I think scientists just can't accept that they really don't know. Also, I really don't think the earth is that old.

Well it is possible that they are wrong, but until proven wrong it is perfectly safe to go with the current theory. Im not sure exactly what your beliefs are and im not here to ridicule you out of them, but how old do you believe the earth to be?

That's just another problem. We don't know how the earth was formed, as the big bang makes more or less no sense, and therefore we cannot age the earth. So I'd say maybe in the tens of millions at most, but certainly not billions. I don't have many theories to be believe in, as you may have noticed.

The Earth is only 10s of millions of years old.
10s of Millions of years old
You really said that.
HELL. FREAKIN'. NO!
Are you saying the Earth was created after the Dinosaurs came about because of 10s of millions of years of evolution?
REALLY?
That's possible to have a species on a planet before it was created? Never knew that.
I knew the Earth was at least 100s of millions years old when I was 4. I studied Dinosaurs, and could recite facts about many of them, name a lot of them, and know what they ate (generalized of course into herbivore, carnivore) so I knew the first dinosaurs were well before 100 million BC. That's like the Jurrasic, which was the second dinosaur period I think. (I stopped studying dinos in Grade 4)

The Earth is at least a billion years old, the universe, from the microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang puts the universe at around 13.7 billion years old.

Grade 9 educations ftw.

You obviously missed the whole point of this thread. I don't believe in many of the "facts" that are taught in the school system. No matter what anyone says, the age of the earth has not yet been proven.

And you sir, completely missed my point.
So let's reiterate shall we?

Fossils have been dated as 100s of millions of years old.
The Earth cannot be less that that if we have found life from that time period.
How does that not make sense?

That's the problem. If one does not believe that the dating system is foolproof, then one wouldn't believe that the earth is 100s of millions years old. You are missing his point.

As a former creationist, who used to believe anything that I was told merely because it was by some scientist friends that I know, (at ICR), I'd like to think that I can answer some of the questions regarding this category.

There are problems regarding evolution, macroevolution at least, which you made clear was what this topic was about.

For example, in order for one animal to change into an entirely different kind of animal, say a dinosaur to a bird, (forgive me if that's incorrect, I'm trying to do some research to compensate for my horrendous lack of education regarding evolution, since my parents always taught me it was bogus), information must be added to an animal's DNA. A dinosaur simply does/did not have the information encoded in it's DNA that would enable it to change into a bird. However, the problem with the view that it therefore didn't happen, is that it is a "gaps" theory, in other words, we don't know how it happens, therefore it didn't happen. Primitive people used the same logic to justify saying Zeus caused electricity.

The dating system also has been proven to have problems. One thing I have noticed in this thread is people keep using carbon dating to prove things that happened millions of years ago. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my evolutionary biology teacher, carbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 years, because anything older than this will not have a detectable level of C-14. What is used in older fossils is radioisotope dating, such as Potassium-Potassium, Potassium-Argon, and the like. These dating systems all rely on a system of four assumptions, which seem to be good ones, however, if any of them are not actually true, then the dating system is indeed flawed:

1) The starting amount of the daughter product is known, (normally assumed to be zero).
2) All the daughter product is due to radioactive decay.
3) The sample was always in a closed environment, (in other words, no daughter product escaped from the sample, and no daughter product was absorbed by the sample from the environment).
4) The rate of decay remains the same.

#4 seems to be an ironclad assumption, the other 3 should all be measured on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, there are problems with evolution, but that is the beauty of science, we continue to discover new things. If evolution is in fact, not true, then science will eventually come to that conclusion, but it will not do so before the evidence warrants that conclusion.

 

[guardian001]

First off, let me just say:
Is it any more likely that we all simply popped into existence? Is it not more reasonable that we started off as something small and gradually worked our way up to fully functional beings? I really don't see how people can't believe in evolution. I mean, they're fully entitled to believe whatever they want about where we came from, but to me it just seems like they're either ignoring the very convincing evidence or they haven't heard it.

Anyway, the unsupported logic claims out of the way, let's move on to logic backed up by fact.

When a mutant animal is born, it does not immediately become incompatible for mating. They simply have some small thing different about them that separates them from the rest. However, fundamentally, they are still the same thing. If a child is born with blue eyes, will it only be able to reproduce with other blue eyed people? Of course not. I realize that this isn't technically an evolution, but it does have one thing in common with evolution. Genes. Mutations happen through tiny changes in the genes we inherit from our parents. The change can be something small, like an extra pair of teeth (For example, our wisdom teeth didn't always exist) to something huge, like claws or poison, which will help it to survive.

If the mutation is one that will help the animal survive, it's edge over the rest of the species will allow it to become the dominant variety. It's children will probably have the mutation, and their children, and so on and so forth.

Eventually, all of the minor mutations add up to something entirely different than what we started with. At some point, the genes are mutated so much, they simply become incompatible.


Finally, about not seeing evolutions today. What makes you think we don't? In fact humans are still evolving. As I mentioned earlier, Wisdom teeth were not always part of the human anatomy. However eventually someone was born with them, and it made it easier to eat, and this trait got passed on. Now, however, we have no need for these teeth. We no longer eat such tough foods, and they have become obsolete. Gradually, our jaws have shrunk, to eliminate the room used by the wisdom teeth. Most of us still grow wisdom teeth in spite of this, however there are people born without them. They have mutated to the point where they no longer have them due to a lack of necessity. It's rare, but it's slowly happening. Eventually, there will probably be no more people with them (unless, of course, we start eating raw meat again).

So yes, I do believe in evolution.

Edit:

4) The rate of decay remains the same.

#4 seems to be an ironclad assumption, the other 3 should all be measured on a case-by-case basis.

Actually, I believe (I may be wrong here) that we can prove this due to both half life and chemistry. All isotopes that experience radioactive decay have a half life value. These values have been shown to remain constant no matter how long you wait. Of course, this still may not be true, as nobody can live long enough to check this for total accuracy.

 

[edinflames]

I'd like to start by saying that I really don't want to offend you, but I am going to pick apart some of what you say. I do this with the best of intentions and offer you some reference videos that you can watch if you really do want to learn about evolution.

But that part is down to you. The evidence is there, provided that you don't decide to turn your head away from it. See end of post for vid refs.

I don't mean the part where a species changes over time, as that is quite evidently true, but rather that all species came from a common ancestor through the process of speciation. I quite frankly don't see how this could possibly make any sense.

Then your teachers probably haven't explained it clearly enough. There is no difference between macro and micro evolution, merely the amount of time required for noticeable change to take place.
Please see this video, its a tad belligerent but its connected to the ongoing youtube battle between the god squad and the evolution crew, it explains much better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3SAGDZXLxI

Even through billions of random mutations, I don't think bacteria could turn into something as complex as a human.

I don't want to be a dick, but there are people a lot smarter than you or I that have worked on this for most of their adult lives on this. Evolution is accepted as scientific fact whether you choose to believe it or not. The only higher state of proof that exists is a mathematical proof ie 1+1=2. The only people who don't accept it as fact are people who instead put 'faith' in unprovable bronze age superstitions. I don't want to insult, but this is where ultimately it is your choice what you believe.

And why don't we see any animals changing species today? You'd think that at least one or two should be crossing over around now.

You don't see it because you don't get to live that long. Sorry, that's mortality for you. Actually, having said that, if you observe the consequences of selective breeding programmes then you will see evolution in action. It takes a handful of generations to breed wild wolves into a life form very close to the German shepherd dog.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me, and the fact that scientists blindly accept this as fact really grinds my gears. Every time i say something against it people immediately assume I'm looking at it from a creationist standpoint, when I really am not. I don't know if anyone else has opinions about this, but input would be very nice.

That may be because you make the assertion that "scientists blindly accept this as fact", and that sounds an awful lot like creationist garbage. If you really want to understand evolution there are some excellent educational videos I can show you.

This first one is a favorite of mine, its quite old (1991) but brilliantly delivered (consider that since it was made the evidence has stacked up further): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8xFaNGzgTQ

It is the first of 7 videos. I wholeheartedly implore you to have patience and learn from the outstanding lecturer. I won't mention his name here for fear of scaring you away (in case you are religious).

 

[Wide White]

Microevolution: Yes. It's been completely proven. No one doubts it.

Macroevolution: No. Call me cynical.

Is there a word for that, because thats my stance on evolution

Wouldn't it be cool to staple body parts unto yourself like in Spore?

 

[quiet_samurai]

Actually my friend you see evolved and changed species every day. Every single organism on earth alive today is an evolving creature, and is at the pinacle of that organisms evolution. You might not be grasping the amount of time it takes for a completely obvious mutation or change to occur. Most organisms don't know they are evolving because the changes are so slight and occur over tens of thousands of years, so they are not around long enough to notice. Also just because an organism changes doesn't mean it will survive, if the mutation is not advantageous or desirable by the opposite sex it will most likely die off. it would be like a person being born with horns, although neat, in todays human society it would serve no real purpose for survival and members of the opposite sex might not find it appealing, so no little horned children. (That was a very loose and vague example but it applies.)

Also when you talked about different species not being able to reproduce is not true. From what I remember organisms only have to be about 90% genetically similar to produce offspring. (Don't qupte me on that though, it's close.) Theoretically humans and chimps are genetically similar enough to reproduce there is only less than a 2% difference between the two species. We aree more genetically similar that horses and donkeys are and they produce offspring, or tigers and lions, or the numerous species of plants that we cross breed. So as long as two species are genetically similar enough to produce offspring they will, and since the changes and mutations are so gradual and slight they are not enough to totally isolate that organism from the gene pool of the ones around him.

 

[edinflames]

No they didn't produce life, the composition of it just changed slightly; invovled electricity to simulate lightening setting thigns i motion if I recall.

In anycase some scientists are beginnign to think that life started around volcanic vents rather than sludge like pools.

Life itself is pretty improbable, apparently the odds of the simpilest amino acid assembling itself without any outside head in teh right order woould be like having a thousand wheeled slot machien wit heach wheel having twenty six different amino acid proteins (or somethign like that but i'm not exaggerating) Imagien how long you'd have to stand there untill you get the right combination.

Have you ever heard of the Monkey Shakespeare Simulator? Using the "infinite monkey theorem" it used a random letter generator where each "monkey" types one letter per second, and the number of monkeys constantly increased (started with 100, then added more to show population growth and procreation, doubling the number of monkeys every few days). The simulator compared the output with the works of Shakespeare, and after a year and a half the longest match was 24 letters from The Second Part of King Henry IV, which took the equivalent of 2,738 trillion trillion trillion monkey years to produce. After a year, the record was over 30 letters, but that took trillions and trillions more monkey years to produce.

That seems to be (personally, anyway) one of the biggest challenges to Darwinism in its purest form - the universe itself isn't big enough or old enough to hold all of the information and specified complexity that we observe today, especially if you claim that all of it arrived through complete random chance.

How do you know that the universe isn't big enough?

That monkey theory is pure b.s. anyway. Random chance does not create complexity in life, evolution *always* progresses toward complexity.

The laws of physics are the way they are. You cannot argue 'but if they were a little different life wouldn't exist thus god must have made the universe for us' simply because there is no evidence to suggest the laws of physics could ever be anything other than what they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=related

When it comes to probability of abiogenesis, the formation of the first organic cells, it is simply a matter of having the right chemical ingredients at the right temperature for a long enough period of time and the odds become 1:1

Funnily enough those chemicals are not rare, and considering how temperature varies on the earth even in its present state it is extremely likely that life would happen not just here on earth but all over the universe.

 

[edinflames]

Microevolution: Yes. It's been completely proven. No one doubts it.

Macroevolution: No. Call me cynical.

Is there a word for that, because thats my stance on evolution

Wouldn't it be cool to staple body parts unto yourself like in Spore?

Oh my, this is getting annoying.

Yes, it is proven. You simply choose the ignore the evidence - want proof? look it up. Go on, go to an academic (not a f*cking christian science) library or even youtube.

Macro and Micro evolution are terms made up by creationists to confuse the issue, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is the amount of TIME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related