Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:43:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
319 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> >
> > > > > Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been
> > > > > faked. The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of
> > > > > National Geographic being a great example.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen no such claims in any scientific source.
> > >
> > > What do mean? You've never seen National Geographic?
> >
> > Even if he hasn't, I have, and I ask you what does it prove?
>
> All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK
> there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though
> there should theoretically be more transitional than normal.
I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No
response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake.
Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked.
> > Yet again, I remind you that everything is a transitional fossil...
> > ...You ask me for a transitional form, and I say that *you* are a
> > transitional form between your father and your (hypothetical) son...
>
> Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for evidence of is the
> theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another - part of
> what I've "defined" as Darwinism - NOT evolution WITHIN a species.
There is ONLY evolution within a species. If it wasn't the same species it
couldn't evolve by definition. All what you call "Macro-evolution" is is
nothing more than evolution within a species over a very, very long time.
Given a long enough time and isolation due to distance or other barriers,
what started off as the same species ends up as two or more. They are so
different they can no longer mate and produce viable offspring. That's it!
New species!
Then keep adding more time. Variation upon variation. That's why
*everything* is a transitional fossil.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
