it is no less proven than many other 'theories' that you probably accept without even thinking about it. evolution is so well understood that we can make predictions about variance in mutations and genes with incredible precision and accuracy. the only difference between evolution and other more accepted theories is the evidence is more complicated and harder to observe. this does not make it any less valid. it is not science's job to attempt to educate willfully ignorant people.ReD_Fist said:well if believing evolution is what people want,go for it,but not me.I thought it was stupid way back when i first heard of darwin,and it still is the most unproven,illogical,no one can explain what ever happend to the mid term evolutes.
if you are as open minded as you claim, do some research about allele frequency and how it relates to microevolution. it is observed and predictions are made for microevolution, but the principle behind it (ie it is not specific to allele frequency) applies to all of evolution. it is just harder for major genetic changes to occur, but there is no reason they can't happen. the mechanism in cell reproduction is not perfect, when this occurs in gametes you get mutation.
i don't claim to know exactly what is going on here, i'm not into biology, but until you at least get a slight grip on the stuff stop making assertions you can't defend.
lastly, stop with this ****ing bull**** of denying the existance of transitional forms. you want to know one of the reasons why science doesn't participate in 'debate' with creationism? look no further than this. it seems to consistently come up. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there. its not like this isn't the only example, there are 4 others on this page, there is a very complete horse evolution hierarchy that has been posted, and there is this new carnivore->herbivore find that you also ignore.Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils. <image>
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
sometimes i think creationists (possibly subconciously) deny evidence that obviously exists to keep up their image of being persecuted. there is really no other explanation for repeatedly ignoring it aside from stupidity. neither choice is good for them.
i have no idea.Stilgar said:Why do you persist so?