Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

[bojulay]

Yes it is a valid argument, how could it not be. You just dismiss the facts.

Fact: Micro evolution is no proof of macro, many species have grown and developed
over many years with changes within that species.

Fact: But no proven evidence for the changing from one species to another has
ever been found, only assumed. There is no evidence that any such transformations
took place in the fossil record, only assumed. Some that lived many years ago are still alive today with little change at all having taken place.


Fact: It is not possible, no matter how much they would like for it to be,
for life to be spontaneously generated from dead matter.

Don't you understand what they, and you, are proposing.

I't defies both science and logic.

The majority of their beliefs are only assumed not proven,
but they start with the" FRAME OF REFERENCE " that life
was somehow generated from dead matter, so all roads
lead back to that belief, any science or logic applied
to it says that it's not possible.

At that point it becomes a RELIGION like any other and has
to be accepted by faith, faith without ultimate proven fact.

You should study FRAME OF REFERENCE Everyone is governed
by one, but most people don't even no that, or know what theirs
is.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

We were the reason dogs were domesticated and formed as a subspecies of wolves.



http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/m...ionofspeed.htm

"
Evolution of Speed
The reason the cheetah evolved for speed in the first place is because it needed to be fast enough to catch its prey, the gazelle. Both the cheetah and the gazelle have constantly evoled to be faster and faster in order to survive. The cheetahs that are not fast enough to catch their prey will starve and the fast cheetahs will pass their genes on.The gazelles that are not fast enough will get eaten and the fast ones will pass their genes on. This is a constant race and the faster the gazelle gets, the faster the cheetah gets as well. Once again, because the cheetah evolves to get faster and faster, it chooses the open plains habitat to fit its function of sprinting."


Using Google I found a wealth of knowledge by typing "Evolution of the Cheetah" but I must wonder why the National Institute of Health has this information, that's odd...


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626734/




An exert regarding the ancestor species of cheetah which may contain information about their evolution to answer your questions better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah#Etymology


The cheetah likely evolved in Africa during the Miocene epoch (26 million to 7.5 million years ago), before migrating to Asia. Recent research has placed the last common ancestor of all existing populations as living in Asia 11 million years ago, which may lead to revision and refinement of existing ideas about cheetah evolution.[10]


The now-extinct species include: Acinonyx pardinensis (Pliocene epoch), much larger than the modern cheetah and found in Europe, India, and China; Acinonyx intermedius (mid-Pleistocene period), found over the same range. The extinct genus Miracinonyx was extremely cheetah-like, but recent DNA analysis has shown that Miracinonyx inexpectatus, Miracinonyx studeri, and Miracinonyx trumani (early to late Pleistocene epoch), found in North America and called the "North American cheetah" are not true cheetahs, instead being close relatives to the cougar.[11]
''

The best answer is that they have gaps. Did the Cheetah randomly get created by God with a 1-2-3-POOF! or did it happen like every other pattern of evolution we have discovered? In other words, this isn't a valid argument. The cheetah still evolved, God may have designed how it was going to happen before the universe even existed, but the cheetah still evolved.


Not trying to be rude here, but honestly evolution isn't up for debate guys, Gonorrhea just evolved to handle most all of our antibiotics, why? It adapted, the surviving bacteria adapted. Oh I know someone will chime in with "Micro evolution" but it is only micro for several million years when the combined micro changes become macro so again not a valid argument.

Lol- Hyenas, lions, and Leopards also hunt Gazelles and neither the Hyena, Lion, or Leopard is even remotely close to being fast as the cheetah- so that completely destroys the info you copied and pasted- you are making absolutely no sense at all nor does your logic.


Also, Gomorrhea didn't evolve it becomes resistant those are 2 different meanings- a boxer is more than likely able to absorb a punch better than you or I not because a boxer has evolved, but because the Boxer spars in the gym- has a rigid work out and when the boxer trains he is trained to withstand blows that would knock you and I out- so did the boxer evolve a better body or a stronger chin???

Your arguments and replies are so comical and elementary. So if cheetahs evolved faster to chase and capture Gazelles- well golly geez- you would think a sloth after thousands of years would have evolved into something much faster- Jaguars hunts sloths and so do eagles- who both have no trouble grabbing the slow moving sloth- wow I wonder why the sloth hasn't developed something that will make him out run his predators- give it up exoticdancer you have yet to produce one logical response.

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Lol- Hyenas, lions, and Leopards also hunt Gazelles and neither the Hyena, Lion, or Leopard is even remotely close to being fast as the cheetah- so that completely destroys the info you copied and pasted- you are making absolutely no sense at all nor does your logic.


Also, Gomorrhea didn't evolve it becomes resistant those are 2 different meanings- a boxer is more than likely able to absorb a punch better than you or I not because a boxer has evolved, but because the Boxer spars in the gym- has a rigid work out and when the boxer trains he is trained to withstand blows that would knock you and I out- so did the boxer evolve a better body or a stronger chin???

Your arguments and replies are so comical and elementary. So if cheetahs evolved faster to chase and capture Gazelles- well golly geez- you would think a sloth after thousands of years would have evolved into something much faster- Jaguars hunts sloths and so do eagles- who both have no trouble grabbing the slow moving sloth- wow I wonder why the sloth hasn't developed something that will make him out run his predators- give it up exoticdancer you have yet to produce one logical response.

Actually I retract the Gonorrhea point because I forget that these strains borrow proteins. However, your calling my arguments elementary because you are being unscientific and touting the gaps between discoveries means a space wizard did it using instantaneous magical effects is not valid.

I give up though, because we could argue this into eternity. Creationists are generally scared to DEATH of the idea that humanity would descend from primates, that life's origin was unicellular, that the creation myths in various scriptures are going to be absolutely debunked.

The problem is, the entire global scientific community accepts this as fact and the wealth of knowledge if out there for you to study but you and many others just fold your arms, kick, close your eyes, and scream, "It isn't true! It is a lie! It is a conspiracy!" over and over again.

So let's compromise shall we? We aren't going to agree because your mind is closed to an absolute fact and my trying to convince you cannot work...You win by sheer stubbornness.

It was a space wizard! Or wait! No! Aliens did it!

[oeb11]

EDWD- You are correct in these lines.

"I give up though, because we could argue this into eternity. Creationists are generally scared to DEATH of the idea that humanity would descend from primates, that life's origin was unicellular, that the creation myths in various scriptures are going to be absolutely debunked.

The problem is, the entire global scientific community accepts this as fact and the wealth of knowledge if out there for you to study but you and many others just fold your arms, kick, close your eyes, and scream, "It isn't true! It is a lie! It is a conspiracy!" over and over again.

So let's compromise shall we? We aren't going to agree because your mind is closed to an absolute fact and my trying to convince you cannot work...You win by sheer stubbornness."

No sense arguing with the closed minded. One cannot debate creationists over what is or is not a FACT. They cannot accept the scientific method, or even care to understand what the scientific method entails. There is no rational debate, integration of new ideas into a scientific framework, and no progression of thought through evidence, hypothesis, theory, to accepted fact. Does Boujulay still defend the Catholic church stance that Galileo was a heretic for defining the sun as the center of the solar system- oops, they forgave him in the 20th century. Do not try to argue with the Spanish Inquisition- they would sooner burn you and all scientists. And dance around the pyre praising themselves for being"Godly".

I have never come across a creationist who was capable of independent thought or compromise. Scientists can do so- based on new and relevant ideas.

Idea- God created the world in 7 days- loosely from the Bible. Yet who are we as men to define what is a "day" to God or by what methods God created this universe.

There is not an argument about the result- it is the methods of God over which man argues, fights, kills, and dies. And who are we, A creation of God on an insignificant third planet of a small sun of a small solar system in one of billions of galaxies in what we know of this universe, to define the ways of God. no more than a colony of ants may define how to send man to the moon.
Man is likely limited by his/her body/senses. Humans are limited to life in a very specialized environment of planet Earth, under a sea of atmosphere and magnetic protection from a hostile space environment. We may be no more capable of truly understanding this universe and our God, than are ants of understanding the space shuttle.

Scientists will change their ideas based upon the scientific method.
Creationists- refuse to change ideas based on their "faith"

Folks- give it a rest- it is not a debate and no one will change their minds based on what is written above.

And- who are we to define the "Day" of God?
oeb11

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

Actually I retract the Gonorrhea point because I forget that these strains borrow proteins. However, your calling my arguments elementary because you are being unscientific and touting the gaps between discoveries means a space wizard did it using instantaneous magical effects is not valid.

I give up though, because we could argue this into eternity. Creationists are generally scared to DEATH of the idea that humanity would descend from primates, that life's origin was unicellular, that the creation myths in various scriptures are going to be absolutely debunked.

The problem is, the entire global scientific community accepts this as fact and the wealth of knowledge if out there for you to study but you and many others just fold your arms, kick, close your eyes, and scream, "It isn't true! It is a lie! It is a conspiracy!" over and over again.

So let's compromise shall we? We aren't going to agree because your mind is closed to an absolute fact and my trying to convince you cannot work...You win by sheer stubbornness.

It was a space wizard! Or wait! No! Aliens did it!

Go ahead and wave the white flag as usual- I gave you the simply scenarios with the giraffe woodpecker and cheetah and you couldn't give me a logical response. I didn't even go in depth with you- it's funny how you make fun of the idea that Aliens could exist- what scientist believes that earth is the only planet in the universe that could have intelligent life???
Science can not explain everything that somehow want to believe that every event in the world has a scientific explanation. I guess exoticdancer you believe that science has answer on how the Pyramids were built or how the large stone were built at Puma Punka during times when there were no cranes or heavy equipment to lift stones- some weighing more than 100 tons. The Pyramids are mathematically perfect and are aligned with a solar constellation, but I guess maybe the Pyramids evolved into what they are now????

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Lol- Hyenas, lions, and Leopards also hunt Gazelles and neither the Hyena, Lion, or Leopard is even remotely close to being fast as the cheetah- so that completely destroys the info you copied and pasted- you are making absolutely no sense at all nor does your logic.


Also, Gomorrhea didn't evolve it becomes resistant those are 2 different meanings- a boxer is more than likely able to absorb a punch better than you or I not because a boxer has evolved, but because the Boxer spars in the gym- has a rigid work out and when the boxer trains he is trained to withstand blows that would knock you and I out- so did the boxer evolve a better body or a stronger chin???

Your arguments and replies are so comical and elementary. So if cheetahs evolved faster to chase and capture Gazelles- well golly geez- you would think a sloth after thousands of years would have evolved into something much faster- Jaguars hunts sloths and so do eagles- who both have no trouble grabbing the slow moving sloth- wow I wonder why the sloth hasn't developed something that will make him out run his predators- give it up exoticdancer you have yet to produce one logical response.

The mistake you keep making over and over is that you think everything must evolve in the same direction.

The cheetah adapted over time to become faster and faster in order to catch the fasted prey. A lot of little improvements over time added up to a fast animal. But it also made the cheetah very weak in other respects. It's body overheats rapidly and it runs out of breath quickly. It is all burst and no endurance. After 30-60 second of running the cheetah has to rest for 15-15 minutes.

Lions adapted for power and mass rather than speed. They may not catch a gazelle, but they do not need to. They can bring down the big but slow water buffalo that would kill a cheetah.

A sloth does not need to outrun its predators. It climbs high up in trees and hangs upside down from branches. Lions and cheetahs cannot get to them. Therefore, there is no evolutionary advantage if a sloth has a genetic variation that makes it a little faster than other sloths. It does not survive in larger numbers than the slow sloths and does not procreate more often.

And somebody made a ridiculous comparison to evolution being like laying out the parts of a machine and coming back years later and finding a fully assembled machine. That's a dumbass comparison.

The machine parts are not living. They do not have offspring. Their non-existent offspring do not have genetic variations that may confer on them a reproductive advantage.

Instead, the machine parts will lie on the ground and rust and deteriorate until nothing is left.

By contrast, if you take a bunch of living creatures and leave them alone for a million years, when you come back you will find that the original living creature, like the original machine parts are all DEAD. However, their offspring after many generations may have evolved into something radically different.

That's how evolution works.

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Go ahead and wave the white flag as usual- I gave you the simply scenarios with the giraffe woodpecker and cheetah and you couldn't give me a logical response. I didn't even go in depth with you- it's funny how you make fun of the idea that Aliens could exist- what scientist believes that earth is the only planet in the universe that could have intelligent life???
Science can not explain everything that somehow want to believe that every event in the world has a scientific explanation. I guess exoticdancer you believe that science has answer on how the Pyramids were built or how the large stone were built at Puma Punka during times when there were no cranes or heavy equipment to lift stones- some weighing more than 100 tons. The Pyramids are mathematically perfect and are aligned with a solar constellation, but I guess maybe the Pyramids evolved into what they are now????

I can't resist but to lay the debate smack down when someone ego dances on my head after I raise the white flag. Alright man, here is your challenge, bring depth. I gave you scientific journals, wikis, and youtube videos explaining evolution in its basics even. You acknowledged none of it aside from a quote I pasted from one .edu site which I agree probably wasn't the best and neither was the gonorrhea point because it uses proteins to adapt from other things. Although it is still "Evolving" because the word means changing and if it changes greatly over a million times over millions of years it will be vastly different.

Not a hard concept to grasp really just needs to be denied to make the whole religion thing work I guess.

We haven't had depth here, why do you bring up individual species as if I am supposed to know every last species history to its fullest? That would be like me saying history didn't exist because you couldn't quote the detailed occurrences of every time period and region. It might be like saying a historic figure didn't exist because archaeologists did not find information on said figure yet. There is a gap, thus the figure was a legend or a myth. That is as bad of an assertion as saying God doesn't exist because there was not a need for divine intervention in our Universal development. Just because there is no apparent need, does not mean there is no architect.

It just doesn't work. True you haven't gone into depth one bit so please do. I challenge you sir, a man who touts his weapon of ass destruction, a man who clearly has the ego to try, to bring me depth,

Pyramids? In what way are they a living creature? How does evolution fit into this picture?

Aliens? Oh I believe in Aliens, I live in Texas man... of course I do.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The mistake you keep making over and over is that you think everything must evolve in the same direction.

The cheetah adapted over time to become faster and faster in order to catch the fasted prey. A lot of little improvements over time added up to a fast animal. But it also made the cheetah very weak in other respects. It's body overheats rapidly and it runs out of breath quickly. It is all burst and no endurance. After 30-60 second of running the cheetah has to rest for 15-15 minutes.

Lions adapted for power and mass rather than speed. They may not catch a gazelle, but they do not need to. They can bring down the big but slow water buffalo that would kill a cheetah.

A sloth does not need to outrun its predators. It climbs high up in trees and hangs upside down from branches. Lions and cheetahs cannot get to them. Therefore, there is no evolutionary advantage if a sloth has a genetic variation that makes it a little faster than other sloths. It does not survive in larger numbers than the slow sloths and does not procreate more often.

And somebody made a ridiculous comparison to evolution being like laying out the parts of a machine and coming back years later and finding a fully assembled machine. That's a dumbass comparison.

The machine parts are not living. They do not have offspring. Their non-existent offspring do not have genetic variations that may confer on them a reproductive advantage.

Instead, the machine parts will lie on the ground and rust and deteriorate until nothing is left.

By contrast, if you take a bunch of living creatures and leave them alone for a million years, when you come back you will find that the original living creature, like the original machine parts are all DEAD. However, their offspring after many generations may have evolved into something radically different.

That's how evolution works.

Ok one at a time- speed is an access for the lion, tiger, hyena,, and leopard since they all have to chase much quicker prey. Gazelles just don't run into lions, or leopards. The lion hunts in the same manner as the cheetah- they all have to chase the prey down-only difference is lions hunt in prides cheetahs sometimes hunt in coalitions and leopards usually are ambush predators who hunt alone- but why is it the cheetah evolved these attributes and the leopard and lion did not? Look at the cheetahs body- everything about it was built for speed- are there any old fossils where the cheetah didnt have claws that didn't retract- a large tail and nostrils? Once again the cheetah's body is designed to run fast. All of the other stuff you added aout the cheetah having to rest for about 15 minutes- well duh- if it's running at 70 mph- of course it's going to tire a lo quicker than if it were running at 35mph.

Your response on the sloth again is futile- by the way- sloths are not hunted by lions and cheetahs because they are not found in africa- they are hunted by eagles- who have excellent vision and can snatch them from trees : http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...94167008506717 - sloths are hunted by jaguars- who can easily climb trees- so wouldn't you think sloths according to evolution would have evolved some sort of defense against predators. Evolutionist state that horns evolved for protection- the cheetahs speed was an evolution trait the cheetah evolved to capture it's prey- I assume they think poison was evolved by snakes to kill it prey. There are just so many gaps in evolution.


Also, the machine comparison id you cal that dumbass- than what do you think of the big bang theory that evolution grasp- since when does chaos result in order? How can you have a "huge" explosion that somehow creates life that amazingly is suitable for living. Somehow life is created- yet the planet has oxygen to sustain life, the planet has the nutrients, resources, and water to keep life growing??? The big bang theory is as crazy as telling someone- hey see that library over there.. well one day there was nothing and than all of a sudden a big explosion happened and a building was erected and inside that building, books were created, and over million of years more books were created until you have what you see today- a library. Makes no sense right?

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Also, the machine comparison id you cal that dumbass- than what do you think of the big bang theory that evolution grasp- since when does chaos result in order? How can you have a "huge" explosion that somehow creates life that amazingly is suitable for living. Somehow life is created- yet the planet has oxygen to sustain life, the planet has the nutrients, resources, and water to keep life growing??? The big bang theory is as crazy as telling someone- hey see that library over there.. well one day there was nothing and than all of a sudden a big explosion happened and a building was erected and inside that building, books were created, and over million of years more books were created until you have what you see today- a library. Makes no sense right?

The first part of your argument neither proves or disproves the theory of evolution. It simply asserts there are possibly gaps in the discovery of individual species evolutionary lineages but not the base theory itself. That argument just isn't valid.

The argument I quoted, I just want to make one simple point:

The planet did not adapt to the life, it was life that adapted to the planet and only because it could continue on while doing so.

You have it completely backwards I think. The ecosystem was just right and the right occurrences happened after the fact. It wasn't a matter of the solar system arriving in place expecting life to just pop in for a visit. Our atmosphere changed and life adapted to the size of the sun changing, to the flora, the gasses, light, heat, humidity/water levels. The original lifeforms that inhabited this planet could NOT still exist for the most part.

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by bojulay

There again, lots of micro and no example of macro.
Truly transitional fossils aren't found.

Take the whale example given in one of the threads.
The oldest found whale fossils are fully formed whales.

Dude, you're a complete moron.... there are tons of lists of transitional fossils listed all over the internet including here talkorigins.org......ALL that MACRO is, is micro with more time, how hard is it for you to grasp that very basic concept?

And really, bud, did you expect them to find an "unformed whale"?

[Look-at-Stupid]

Originally Posted by bojulay

A duckbill platypus has a duckbill and the males have
a venomous spine in their rear legs, what dose
that prove, that they are closely related to
ducks and snakes.

Similarities in certain structures really proves little.
All living creatures have many similar qualities
and characteristics.

Take the wing of a bird for an example,
it needs to be fully formed in all of it's
complex structure to be functional.

If a bird has some half formed mutated
kind of wings it will flounder around on
the ground and die, or be eaten first.

Macro evolution says that there should
be a transitional state where birds had
half formed mutated wings. If so then
macro evolution isn't a very smart
creator.

The fossil record also shows that no such
creature existed.

There is also the problem of time.
There simply isn't enough time for
all of these evolutionary changes
to have taken place.

The fossil record also shows
periods of time where
the number of creatures
increases at a
huge rate
over a
very
short
period
of
time.

Micro evolution on the other hand causes small changes within a species
that are beneficial to that species in helping it adapt to it's environment.

But it does not bring about some grand " ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER"
transformation that macro evolution proposes.

The Idea of macro evolution simply folds up under the weight that it has
been asked to carry.

Buddy, Do you know it is a crime to plagarize other web sites? That is exactly what you are doing in regurgitating this bullshit

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

The first part of your argument neither proves or disproves the theory of evolution. It simply asserts there are possibly gaps in the discovery of individual species evolutionary lineages but not the base theory itself. That argument just isn't valid.

The argument I quoted, I just want to make one simple point:

The planet did not adapt to the life, it was life that adapted to the planet and only because it could continue on while doing so.

You have it completely backwards I think. The ecosystem was just right and the right occurrences happened after the fact. It wasn't a matter of the solar system arriving in place expecting life to just pop in for a visit. Our atmosphere changed and life adapted to the size of the sun changing, to the flora, the gasses, light, heat, humidity/water levels. The original lifeforms that inhabited this planet could NOT still exist for the most part.

There's a flaw in that theory- you are going under the assumption that if there were no oxygen on earth than humans and mammals would have adapted because we would have just adapted to another gas as a life source. Here's one problem with your explanation- take a fish out of water and so how quickly he adapts or throw a new born baby underneath the water and see if it survives. Take a polar bear and put him in the hottest area of africa and see how it survives or adapts. It's a no brainer that somehow the earth has all the elements that are suitable for life- was this by design or by chance? Some marine animals can only live in fresh water and will die in salt water- is that because of evolution or is that because their bodies were designed that way?



Exoticdancer let me ask you a question- are you saying if somehow we were able to send a million people to the moon or Venus that somehow some percentage of that 1 million population would survive and live in that atmosphere even though it doesn't have enough oxygen to sustain human life- but according to you- our bodies should adopt to either the moon or Venus atmosphere?

[exoticdanceweardealer]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

There's a flaw in that theory- you are going under the assumption that if there were no oxygen on earth than humans and mammals would have adapted because we would have just adapted to another gas as a life source. Here's one problem with your explanation- take a fish out of water and so how quickly he adapts or throw a new born baby underneath the water and see if it survives. Take a polar bear and put him in the hottest area of africa and see how it survives or adapts. It's a no brainer that somehow the earth has all the elements that are suitable for life- was this by design or by chance? Some marine animals can only live in fresh water and will die in salt water- is that because of evolution or is that because their bodies were designed that way?



Exoticdancer let me ask you a question- are you saying if somehow we were able to send a million people to the moon or Venus that somehow some percentage of that 1 million population would survive and live in that atmosphere even though it doesn't have enough oxygen to sustain human life- but according to you- our bodies should adopt to either the moon or Venus atmosphere?

Nope you got the theory of evolution all wrong. Refer back to this video and continue the discussion please: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

The planet did not have humans on it during the time I refer to nor polar bears.

Here is a time table:
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/cour...e/origins.html
Part 2: The appearance of Life

• The timetable
  • 3.6-3.7 billion years ago: appearance of life
  • 2.5 billion years ago oxygen-forming photosynthesis
  • ~2.2 billion years ago: aerobic respiration
  • ~1.5 billion years ago: first evidence of fossil eukaryotes
• The appearance of Life: anaerobic heterotrophes
  • 3.6-3.7 billion years ago: appearance of life
  • Most likely first cells were anaerobic, heterotrophic bacteria
    • anaerobic = does not require free oxygen
    • heterotrophic = does not make its own food
• The next step: anaerobic autotrophs
  • Were able to fix CO2
    • turning CO2 + H into organic molecules
  • Hydrogen donors initially were H2, H2S
• Energy sources for autotrophics
  • First used chemical energy from elements in surrounding medium
    • chemoautotrophs (deep-sea vents)
  • As this energy ran low, evolved ability to capture energy from light
    • Photoautotrophs
• Life' s first major crisis
  • Easy hydrogen donors (H2, H2S) used up quickly
  • Key innovation around 2.5 billion years
    • oxygen-forming photosynthesis (cyanobacteria)
    • Use of H2O as a hydrogen donor
• Life' s second major crisis
  • Huge amounts of toxic O2 released
  • Most of the initial O2 was locked up by iron in the oceans and soils (Banded iron formations) = rust
  • More O2 from water keep coming, leading to an O2 rich atmosphere
• Life' s next major innovation
  • Aerobic respiration
    • much more efficient than anaerobic respiration
    • Allowed larger cells and the future potential of multicellular organisms

The species adapted to the changes of the planets over an unfathomable number of generations and species changes. It was not like throwing a cat underwater and expecting it to turn into a fish and develop gills in seconds. Again the video would help you, i'm not trying to be a jerk, you clearly don't fully understand the concept if you need to use those examples. I was as stalwart of a defender of traditional creationist beliefs for a long time and would do the same thing yet refuse to look at the theory directly. Those are pre-concieved notions about the theory but not accurate.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Dude, you're a complete moron.... there are tons of lists of transitional fossils listed all over the internet including here talkorigins.org......ALL that MACRO is, is micro with more time, how hard is it for you to grasp that very basic concept?

And really, bud, did you expect them to find an "unformed whale"?

Still just a theory that one somehow proves the other, not proven,
just theory, but presented as proven fact. DISHONEST!

And yes I would since that is what there theory proposes.

But I evolved from a lesser moron so there is still hope.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Look-at-Stupid

Buddy, Do you know it is a crime to plagarize other web sites? That is exactly what you are doing in regurgitating this bullshit

Huh?

Time for your monthly medication adjustment.