Scientists actaully witness evolution in action!

Valve said:
How? One is right and one is wrong.
Click to expand...

Here's a breakdown of the evolutionary timeline: (some parts will be skipped)

Creation of oceans
Creation of sea life
Evolution to land life
Evolution to air life
Evolution to mammals
Evolution to human

Here's the breakdown of the creation timeline:
Creation of oceans
Creation of sea life
Creation of land life
Creation of air life
Creation of mammals
Creation of humans

We were created in God's image. However, the Book of Genesis does not explicitly say that God did not create the next stage from the other ones. The only one that is marked as different is man. The timeline debate is also up to interpretation. Days aren't necessarily literal.
 
Last edited:
GO BLUE said:
Here's a breakdown of the evolutionary timeline: (some parts will be skipped)

Creation of oceans
Creation of sea life
Evolution to land life
Evolution to air life
Evolution to mammals
Evolution to human

Here's the breakdown of the creation timeline:
Creation of oceans
Creation of sea life
Creation of land life
Creation of air life
Creation of mammals
Creation of humans
Click to expand...

edit:2nd time today I didn't read. bah
 
April23 said:
Ooohhh what's the difference, Jonny?
Click to expand...

the overall theory of evolution, or just Evolution as shorthand, includes the whole of evolution. you can't just cherry pick the later, harder to refute part and tack your creationism thing on the front of it.

then there's the ongoing process of evolution which almost everybody has to agree on. that's what was witnessed recently on the galapagos.

so, creationists who concede that creatures are evolving agree with evolution, but not Evolution.
 
Last edited:
Jonny_B said:
the overall theory of evolution, or just Evolution as shorthand, includes the whole of evolution. you can't just cherry pick the later, harder to refute part and tack your creationism thing on the front of it.

then there's the ongoing process of evolution which almost everybody has to agree on. that's what was witnessed recently on the galapagos.

so, creationists who concede that creatures are evolving agree with evolution, but not Evolution.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A new species would fall under Evolution in your above definition. Its more than just small changes, its changes that prevent it from mating back into that evolutionary branch...
 
fly said:
I disagree. A new species would fall under Evolution in your above definition. Its more than just small changes, its changes that prevent it from mating back into that evolutionary branch...
Click to expand...
based on the article you posted there's no evidence that it can't mate back into that branch. in fact, they specifically mentioned that it might.

and small "e" evolution accepts the variation and even creation of new species, just not that we all evolved from a common ancestor.
 
Jonny_B said:
based on the article you posted there's no evidence that it can't mate back into that branch. in fact, they specifically mentioned that it might.

and small "e" evolution accepts the variation and even creation of new species, just not that we all evolved from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

Though they found mates, it may only have taken a couple generations for the new lineage to ignore — or be ignored by — local finches, and breed only with each other.
Click to expand...

That's called sexual selection, which is an extension of natural selection, aka Evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back