Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.
Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.
What does "science information that atheists call wrong" mean?
Changes at the molecular and even the atomic level are needed for evolutionary change. These are never satisfactorily explained. The gaps in the theory are so wide you could throw a cat through them.
What do you mean by changes at the "atomic level"?
Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.Let's focus on the molecular level first. Are molecular changes needed for evolution?
Let's focus on the molecular level first. Are molecular changes needed for evolution?
Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.
Yes. DNA is a molecule. Changes in that molecule (mutations) are the basis of evolution.
To be honest, let's not do this on this thread. If you want to start this sort of questioning, please start your own thread on it.
This is what happens when probing questions are asked.
OT. Open your catechism in a new thread.
I was fine with your statement about how you think there are gaps in the theory.
I started to say what I think OTHER people mean, but stopped myself.Okay, I'll say that does sort of answer my question as a personal definition of evolution.
The molecular changes are really big gaps.
If you want to pursue that line of thinking, please take it to another thread.
This thread is just about personal definitions of evolution.
I started to say what I think OTHER people mean, but stopped myself.
I believe evolution happens. The Corvette evolved substantially over its lifetime. However, when it comes to biology, I think things mutate. And some consider those mutations in DNA to be evolution. I see it as "de-evolution". The "adaptive" evolution we see, IMO, is a form of natural selection of types that are always showing up. I use the speckled moth as an example. The individual moths did not evolve. Rather, the population did. There were always "mostly dark" and "mostly white" moths. But when the environment favors one color over another, they will increase as a percentage of the population, and the other will decrease.
One could say the population of North America "evolved" after Europeans came here, and Slaves were brought in. But nobody "evolved". Rather, the population did.