What is evolution for you? (please no copying out of dictionaries or investigating before you post) I will not argue against them because what you think is what you think.
So we just got lucky that our ancestors took the evolutionary road that they did? We are on the same step of the ladder as other primates? Why wouldnt they evolve in the same direction as us to better their side of the species?
Simple - different environments, different things to adapt to. We needed intelligence, they needed acrobatics and muscles.
Evolution is wrong. As word. Evolution doesnt exist. What exist is adaptation to environment and survival of the fittest. Giraffas didn't evolve a longer neck for eating high branch leaves, the short neck giraffas died because there was no food for them. Proving it a positive mutation, the long neck giraffas survived. It's the same with human intelligence (even if some of us are less thsn intelligent); the dumb died and the smart survived.
I don't have a definition of it due to my lack of believing the concept of it.
You're view of the subject does not change the definition. No ones view changes a definition. It is a definition for a reason. If I said I don't believe in gravity, doesn't change the definition of it.
In any case, evolution has been proven countless times. It simply happens.
Micro-evolution has while macro-evolution has been greatly supported but never actually proven per say.
Macroevolution has been proven through association considering that it is the exact same thing as microevolution, looked at from a different perspective.
Macroevolution has been proven through association considering that it is the exact same thing as microevolution, looked at from a different perspective.
I was thinking something more along the lines of never actually been observed/not replicable at this time making it not 100% proven but either way I should probably stay out of this before you best me at this again (again (again)).
I was thinking something more along the lines of never actually been observed/not replicable at this time making it not 100% proven but either way I should probably stay out of this before you best me at this again (again (again)).
I think you still think the difference is qualitative if you're saying this - remember that the only real difference is quantitative - the length of time you're looking at. They're both the same pie, it's just that the slices you're eating is differently sized.
So if microevolution is proven but not macroevolution, then the existence of a small piece of pie is proven, but not one larger than said small piece of pie. If that makes sense.
I was thinking something more along the lines of never actually been observed/not replicable at this time making it not 100% proven but either way I should probably stay out of this before you best me at this again (again (again)).
Well that's not entirely correct. We do have observed instances of speciation which is evolutionary change at the level of the species i.e. macroevolution.
So if microevolution is proven but not macroevolution, then the existence of a small piece of pie is proven, but not one larger than said small piece of pie. If that makes sense.
But what if the rest of the pie had been eaten and therefore wasn't there? If that made sense =P
I do get what your saying I'm just saying that specific magroevolution (i.e. humans and apes descended from common ancestor) cannot be considered absolute fact because it wasn't directly observed. However I do concede that macroevolution can be shown through microevolution but not for specific instances.
This is why I find this topic of defining evolution interesting because it seems many people have some really F'd up ideas as to what it is.
If only people paid attention to Biology (if they provided Evolution as a course in it) or looked up the word in dictionary.com .... Then they would get the most general and objective of all definitions to the word. And if they actually learned what it involves, then they would actually know what we are talking about.
I'm just saying that specific magroevolution (i.e. humans and apes descended from common ancestor) cannot be considered absolute fact because it wasn't directly observed.
Well...we don't have direct evidence, because that involves looking at the generations of said species overtime, taking notes for incremental changes. But that takes tens of thousands of years to perform that successfully! It's much better if we undergo archaeological digs to find the skeletal layout of animals, taking their samples, and figuring out that they indeed were common ancestors of said animal.
However I do concede that macroevolution can be shown through microevolution but not for specific instances.
What specific instances are you talking about? I may help you out there.
You seem to be hung up on this concept of absolutes when all we can really have are degrees of certainty based on available evidence.
Which is generally my point, I'm not questioning the theories validity just stating what you just said.
What specific instances are you talking about? I may help you out there.
Any macro really; anyway I'm going to get off this thread before someone thinks I'm on their side when I'm not. Enjoy your debate please take it easy on the Creationists and Creationists don't threaten the evolutionists with hell that's not very nice or biblical.
Enjoy your debate please take it easy on the Creationists and Creationists don't threaten the evolutionists with hell that's not very nice or biblical.
