oh damn, I actually did say that. well internets for you for catching me. my typo. my bad.
What I demonstrated in my illustration was how one species can change into another over time. In other words macroevolution.
eh.. thats just micros all the way. again it is relative to what you deem/ measure time with. in reality everything is just micro, but when people lump large changes (composed of small things) they say it is macro. it is open to interpretation.
We even have modern animals who still use these varying states of development today.
yeh those creepy looking lizards with the gills on the outside or something
I want to believe that I live in a Utopia like in Star Trek, but that doesn't make it real.
I realize that. I want lots of things too, but I know most of them will not come true. But that doesn't change the fact that people WANT to believe. Human nature is to want. When biological life ends, people want to believe that there is in fact something better beyond it. Which I find is simply the basis of most religions.
Yeah we have covered this a few times on here. And for the record I'm not 14.
sorry I meant 14 as a generalization of majority of users. not necessarily directed towards you.
a species of fish eventually developed the ability to exist on land for a short period of time. That ability was improved upon, as the need to be on land increased. Eventually it developed the ability to breath both air and under water still having to stay close to water. Eventually it was able to complete get away from the water and stay entirely on land. We even have modern animals who still use these varying states of development today.
it's all relative though. it depends on what epochs you use to define a set amount of "time"
What I demonstrated in my illustration was how one species can change into another over time. In other words macroevolution.
relative. I wasn't saying macro and micro evo dont exist. they do. just depending on how you look at things gives you different answers. since this topic doesn't really have "Definite" answer since nobody's lived hundreds of millions of years. which is why I cant say. this this this happened. rather I can say based off of this this this evidence I can deduce that this happened.
eh.. thats just micros all the way. again it is relative to what you deem/ measure time with. in reality everything is just micro, but when people lump large changes (composed of small things) they say it is macro. it is open to interpretation.
As I said it's the same thing just on different scales. or as was said lots of microevolution=macroevolution. macroevolution being change at or above the level of species. So a an animal changing from one species to another through a number of microevolutionary changes is macroevolution. Why is that so hard to understand?
r as was said lots of microevolution=macroevolution. macroevolution being change at or above the level of species. So a an animal changing from one species to another through a number of microevolutionary changes is macroevolution. Why is that so hard to understand?
yea I know I just said i get it. Im trying to catch up on this discussion since I didnt read like 130 pages of this argument. no need to be hostile
I get that macro breaks down into lotsa micro. I think i mentioned that somewhere in one of my previous banters against 314.
Isnt it interesting that one theory by one man a couple hundred years ago could have so much backing compared to a theory/religion that has been around for thousands of years. It just shows how man's mind is falling instead of evolving into an advanced machine
Isnt it interesting that one theory by one man a couple hundred years ago could have so much backing compared to a theory/religion that has been around for thousands of years. It just shows how man's mind is falling instead of evolving into an advanced machine
Not sure if I follow your reasoning. Evolution is widely accepted because of the evidence backing it. Religion on the other hand is not backed by evidence, but more a basis of wishful thinking.
And looking at what M4 said. I'd take the theory of evolution as rather the opposite of man's mind 'failing'. It shows that we have grown more capable in our scientific abilities and our abilities to reason. We no longer have to rely on unproven religious books from thousands of years ago to explain everything.
Isnt it interesting that one theory by one man a couple hundred years ago could have so much backing compared to a theory/religion that has been around for thousands of years. It just shows how man's mind is falling instead of evolving into an advanced machine
Well actually, leaning away from religion and towards science with evidence and researching things is becoming more advanced?
Was there a point to bringing this back up just to say this? Though if anyone wants to get into the topic I'm more than ready for a debate. (see profile for details)
