111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + +
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 04:56, May 16, 2008
, 04:56, May 16, 2008no edit summary
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
Evolution isn't a theory, it's a scientifically proven process. Scientists have observed rapidly reproducing species such as Mayflies diversify after about 100 or so generations. We've seen it happen, Evolution, as a process, is proven. [[User:Apocalypse223|Apocalypse223]] 09:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)