Originally posted by Neo
It proves that macroevolution isn't, as you said, a "shaky theory".
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Well france is a name for a location, a location whch you can go to and experience first hand. You can't observe what happened millions of years ago, and call your conclusion fact.
This may come as a shock, but evolution didn't just happen millions of years ago. It's happening right this very second (as has been pointed out many a time in this thread).
Something else taught as fact in schools, too: the 18th century. I certainly wasn't there. You weren't there either, I would assume (unless you're really, really old). And we can't go back in time to observe it (unless you have a time machine handy). Yet, stuff that (supposedly) took place in the 18th century is being taught in schools as fact.
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
I'm not talking about micro-evolution.
This is a better comparison you drew than your last one. But it's still flawed because it's drawing a comparison between "history" and "pre-history".
"Microevolution"? What's dat?
"History" and "pre-history"? There's a difference?
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Microevolution is the only form of evolution that can be proved. It is scientific, and i am not arguing against it.
Well what I mean is like historical eara vs. pre-historical era.
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Well microevolution occurs within the same "kind"; a cell. I don't see how you can use this to say a dog could have come from a rock.
Originally posted by Brimshack
The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is at best a heuristic device. The same mechanisms would be involved in either one. To concede the one is thus to concede the other.
or can you tell me why there would need to be a different mechanism?
First, define "kind". And please tell me what prevents one "kind" of animal from evolving into something we would no longer consider of being the same "kind".
The second statement sounds a little too much like Kent Hovind. Please tell me you know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
Originally posted by Rising_Suns
Kind; like a species which includes all its variations.
And i'm not saying that it can't happen. What I am sayig is that no one has ever observed it to happen, and thus has not been proven. So it should not be regarded as fact in textbooks when all it is is a theory.
Yes I do. I actually just saw one of Hovind's videos so that's where the "rock" analogy came from. I suppose I should now note that i'm not a hovind advocate. However, he does have some good points, though some are too extreme. but that discussion is for another thread. In any event, that barrier between abiogenesis and evolution sometimes conveniently gets thrown out the window when arguing against creation.
The problem is that there is no actual difference between the kind of variations found between minor subspecie and those between Species or even genie.
when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me
I bet if we looked hard enough we'd find a LOT of stuff we take for granted in textbooks.
Actually I think you are the one who just threw the distinction out the window, much less the barriar.