21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 18:44, February 13, 2007
, 18:44, February 13, 2007no edit summary
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.
Counter- The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)