786 said:Actually there are no transitional forms.
Yes there are.
786 said:Actually there are no transitional forms.
Blue_UK said:786, please read (and I'm sure you'll love it) Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". This is an absolute must for any self respecting intellectual let alone scientist.
So long as there is a variation within a population then natural selection can change the 'gene-frequency' of alleles 'for' various traits in the gene pool (sexual reproduction maintains a good mix (see meiosis)). Occational mutations may result in new variation (bare in mind the millions of years that our cells had evolved over, even if our ancestors were not human when when new features came about) and hence life can adapt to create new species by any definition.
That's the theory, look back at James R's list of key points and you'll see that they not only look good, but have yet to be disproved.
Spidergoat, I imagine 786 (et al, if any) are convinced that evolution occurs - it's more the "climbing mount improbable" issue that seems to be the difficult one to digest.
786 said:Actually there are no transitional forms.
spidergoat said:We can also observe evolution and natural selection happening very rapidly, like with the number of different strains of the AIDS virus, which adapts to drug treatments in a matter of weeks. We also see new diseases emerging, like SARS. Did God create SARS, or did it evolve recently?