Have we stopped evolving.

"Common Structures - identifies and infers a common structure in anatomy between animals which, although may vary in detail, are similar in general structure and relation to one another."
------------------------

I do not deny the existence of similarities in design or structure. However, if evolutionary interpretation were correct we should find a continuous and gradual inter-gradation between all life forms back to their supposed common ancestor. The fact that no such fine gradation exists refutes the evolutionary interpretation. Also, homologous structures requires the same genes that produced the presumed ancestral structure also produce the present corresponding structure. If the genes are the the same, why has the entire structure changed?




"The Fossil Record - identifies the sequence of biological life-forms which changed systematically over long periods of time."
------------------------

The fossil record is based on a flawed geologic column, and is therefore, guilty of circular reasoning. Also, the lack of transitional fossils are an obvious problem. I will go into more detail later. Gotta go for now. Have a good weekend.
 
Inspector

If the genes are the the same, why has the entire structure changed?

But the genes are not the same - they have evolved, some genes evolve faster than others depending on how tolerant their proteins.

The fossil record is based on a flawed geologic column, and is therefore, guilty of circular reasoning. Also, the lack of transitional fossils are an obvious problem.

The fossil record is not flawed. Dinosaurs remains did not coexist with human fossils - simple unicellular organisms predate multicellular organisms - invertebrates precede vertebrates. Nowhere has this sequence been found inverted.

However, I look forward to your additional responses.

Yes, have a good weekend. :)

Have you ever seen a flying fish ?

><>............................><Ç(((Ç°>
 
i'm back from the weekend and could reply to many things , but will limit myself to one if that is ok

++++Perhaps it should also be mentioned that evolution, as inferred from the fossil record, is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea. For some a belief, perhaps, but it cannot be rightly called either fact or theory when it refers to the "bacteria to bears" progression. Are you with me so far?++++

you can certainly call evolution a theory and not an idea, because theories are not only proven by experimental set ups. Theories can also be supported by predictions. The evolutionary theory didn't do a lot just for evolutionary biology, but also all other biological disciplines. This might be hard to grasp for outsiders, but biology nowadays would be quite difficult to do, without knowing the theory of evolution.

for example something in my field (developmental biology).
Every species has DNA, has genes. We all know that. But what we never could have suspected without the theory of evolution is that a specific gene, for instance the gene 'hedghog', would be almost indentical in sequence between two species that are closely related. The theory of evolution explains this with saying that not so long ago they had a common ancestor and after the species split up, the genes in both species also started diverging.
But then they started looking for gene homologues from drosophila (the fruitfly) in the mouse (a mammalian)...and guess what ....they found the same genes, but of course they have greater divergence in sequence since their ancestors have been separated long before. No one would ever have thought of looking for these homologues if there had been no theory of evolution. Because when you start thinking about it, it would be difficult to come up with another theory that would predict the current gene homology.
This is just one axample...but the biological literature is full of experiments, papers which are based on predictions extracted from the evolutionary theory. Therefore i think it is a false assumption that evolution is not a theory



Review
Cell, Vol. 68, 283–302, January, 1992. Homeobox Genes and Axial Patterning. W. McGinnis and R. Krumlauf. (can't find a more recent review so fast)

if you rather read a book: see also 'developmental biology' by scott gilbert (5th or 6th edition: can't remember what is the latest, but checked back as far as the 3rd edition and it also had the info)


horse.gif
 
Last edited:
"The fossil record is not flawed. Dinosaurs remains did not coexist with human fossils - simple unicellular organisms predate multicellular organisms - invertebrates precede vertebrates. Nowhere has this sequence been found inverted."
----------------------------------------------------



Q, historical geology is based on the assumption of evolutionary biology. Thus, the primary evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution. This is called circular reasoning and is illogical and invalid. Now, let us examine the flawed geologic column. The fossil record shows "primitive" life forms at the lowest strata, on up to "higher" life forms at the top strata. However, the "geologic column," as explained by evolutionists, exists nowhere in the world. It is a mental concept, based upon circular reasoning. The geologic column is NOT supported by the fossil record. For example, the Grand Canyon contains less than half of the supposed geologic eras, and, what is most embarrassing to evolutionists, the layers are often inverted, overthrust, or shuffled like a deck of cards. Fossils are often found in the "wrong" stratigraphic order.

Another example? In Glacier National Park in Montana, there is a block of Precambrian limestone (supposedly one billion years old) on top of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only one hundred million years old). Evolutionary geologists hesitantly propose that this "misplaced" rock was forced into its present position by shifts of the earth’s crust. Dr. Henry Morris has demonstrated that this 350-mile long, 35-mile wide, 6-mile thick block of limestone could not have slid above the Cretaceous rock. The obvious conclusion is that the Precambrian rocks were actually deposited after the Cretaceous rock.

Another example? William Meister, in Utah, found the fossils of several trilobites in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man! However, according to the evolutionary timetable worked out in the geologic column, trilobites became extinct nearly 230 million years before the appearance of man! Therefore, to find a modern, sandaled man existing contemporaneously with trilobites is devastating to the geologic column and evolutionary framework.

Naturally, evolutionary geologists have reacted to these contradictions evasively. If they accept this evidence, the credibility of the geologic column would be shattered. However, the evidence is real and cannot be ignored any longer. There are literally thousands of examples which invalidate the geologic column and expose the errors of evolutionary biology. I have offered only a few.





"Have you ever seen a flying fish ?"
--------------------------

Yes, I have, on a recent, blue-water fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico.
 
inspector...you might want to give some literature referenses for your thousands of examples, because if it isn't published in a scientific journal it cannot be taken seriously.

horse.gif
 
"............because if it isn't published in a scientific journal it cannot be taken seriously."
---------------------------


Really? So, evidence must meet your criteria to be admitted as evidence? Or, evidence must endure scientific testing to be labeled as evidence? Why would scientific publications, funded by scientist organizations, publish evidence that contradicts something scientists have created? As you may or may not know, there are things which exist (with overwhelming, supportive evidence) that are beyond the scope of scientific scrutiny.

Anyway, a significant portion of my research, when needed, comes from www.rae.org. This site is loaded with scientific, factual information that is supported by qualified paleontologists, archaeologists, geologists, astronomers and other science-based professionals.

Where do you derive your information regarding the fallacies of evolutionary biology? The flawed geologic column?
 
i dunno...scientific journals i guess....that was stupid i guess, because i could have figured out myself that they only produce lies so that the common people would be blinded by the obvious truth...

but seriously...

science works on the principle of peer review. Scientific publications therefore have to fulfil the criteria that are expected by their peers. Although this system might not be perfect it does garantee that everything with any scientific merit will be published in the end. Sometimes you see that revolutionary ideas can't get published in the big journals, but have to do with a smaller journal. And then you suddenly see the acceptance of this more radical theory and suddenly the big journals will start accepting these kind of papers...but enough of this.

it's all nice and so that things are on a website...especially for the not so scientific educated people, but if a piece of work can't stand up against peer review you seriously have to ask yourself if it really has any merit to it (it can still be right, but most often not). In this case, you would like to disprove a theory that forms the basis for modern biology, i would like to see more than a creationist website before i could take these 'facts' seriously.

am i deliberately avoiding obvious facts that will disprove the evolutionary theory?
no, since apparently these facts are not that factual, otherwise they would have been considered more seriously by scientists. Science is not a giant conspiracy. What would we gain from withholding this kind of information? The downfall of religion? Religion has already fallen I am afraid. We like to keep the public ignorant? I'm sure i have better things to do than that...
horse.gif
 
"science works on the principle of peer review."
------------------------------


Peer review? You must remember that many scientists are wrongly motivated by the quest for notoriety, e'clat and/or fortunes. These scientists, being human, are affected by their prejudices, and subsequently, their theories may be tainted by their bias. Please note that I am referring only to those scientists who base their studies on flawed material and false assumptions. Their are, however, numerous qualified scientists who are willing to acknowledge this simple fact.

Anyway, this is a discussion about evolution, not about any specific, alternative explanations, nor is this a discussion about religion. If you want to debate religion, then go to the religous forums.
 
Inspector seems to have done a cut-and paste from something by Scott Huse. (No references provided on this page)
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cach...ased+upon+circular+reasoning."&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The geologic column is NOT supposed to be complete in the same way that molecules aren't little spheres connected by wire. No modern geologist claims this should be the case. It does not make the geologic column "flawed", however. (However, there are several places where all the strata are present.)

http://www.skepticfiles.org/origins/icr-whop.htm

deals with the pre-cambrian limestone
 
Originally posted by inspector
"science works on the principle of peer review."
------------------------------


Peer review? You must remember that many scientists are wrongly motivated by the quest for notoriety, e'clat and/or fortunes. These scientists, being human, are affected by their prejudices, and subsequently, their theories may be tainted by their bias. Please note that I am referring only to those scientists who base their studies on flawed material and false assumptions. Their are, however, numerous qualified scientists who are willing to acknowledge this simple fact.

Anyway, this is a discussion about evolution, not about any specific, alternative explanations, nor is this a discussion about religion. If you want to debate religion, then go to the religous forums.
Click to expand...

i was actually going to suggest that you should go to the religion forum, since you obviously are not interested in approaching evolution in a scientific manner. You started quoting creationist propaganda, i just merely pointed out that this is not considered to be science.
Then you go on and probably insult every scientist in the world by stating that they are biased and all their ideas are tainted, unless they happen to be good christians and believe that evolution most be a big hoax. I really wonder how you dare to say these things with a straight face while before you quoted a creationist website. They are not biased at all? And you actually blame me for pointing out how science works to you? And that peer review is so flawed that thousands and thousands of papers about evolution got through somehow. In fact my own last paper is a big joke to you too because I put it in the framework of evolution? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists i would suggest you start learning a bit more about science.

anyhoo concerning the topic :
Before we can assess if the human species has stopped evolving we must gather information about the presence of any selective pressures. The globalization also might have had a great effect on human evolution, since the world is turning into one big melting pot. Therefore isolated populations a rare these days. And as you might know some people suggest that speciation might occur most easily in small isolated population undergoiing a specific selective pressure caused by specific environmental demands.
Does this mean it will be more difficult for the human species to evolve?
horse.gif
 
One must acknowledge that evolution is falsifiable. Also, there is valid evidence which contradicts evolution. Therefore, we can reasonably deduce that there are alternative explanations to evolution. Even Darwin admitted this fact in his book Origin of Species. Now, since equally valid (I say more valid) alternative theories exist apart from evolution, they are by nature, generalized as creation-based. However, I am not discussing creation or religion here. As a result of the nature of this topic, a significant portion of research is found under creation-based scientific literature and websites. This does not invalidate the evidence. Science is a body of knowledge and does not care about the beliefs or non-beliefs of the scientist doing the research. BTW, do not wrongly assume that I cannot hold my own in discussions about this or other science-related topics. ;-)

Yes, I apologize for not citing my source above. I just finished reading the book 'The Collapse of Evolution' by Scott M. Huse. This is an excellent book demonstrating many problems encountered by evolutionists and supported with scientific data gathered by many qualified archaeologists, paleontologists and astronomers.
 
1. One must acknowledge that evolution is falsifiable.
yes...but also the bible.


2. Also, there is valid evidence which contradicts evolution.
no...valid evidence in a science forum, would be scientific evidence.

3. Therefore, we can reasonably deduce that there are alternative explanations to evolution.
no....there are no current reasonable alternatives that can explain the diversity of life in a scientific manner. Unless you care to give me one.

4. Even Darwin admitted this fact in his book Origin of Species.
where?

5.Now, since equally valid (I say more valid) alternative theories exist apart from evolution, they are by nature, generalized as creation-based. However, I am not discussing creation or religion here. As a result of the nature of this topic, a significant portion of research is found under creation-based scientific literature and websites. This does not invalidate the evidence.

not the fact that the 'evidence' is on a creationist website invalidates the evidence, but the fact that it isn't published in a respectable scientific journal does.


6.Science is a body of knowledge and does not care about the beliefs or non-beliefs of the scientist doing the research. BTW, do not wrongly assume that I cannot hold my own in discussions about this or other science-related topics. ;-)

how interesting...you do not seem to be able to make a better position for the validity of your evidence. A previous poster gave a link to an article that explained that the claims you give as evidence were bogus. You can do nothing more than say once again that your precious evidence is valid. In what way would you consider this holding your own in discussions? you hold your own by ignoring everything you don't want to hear?
horse.gif
 
4. Even Darwin admitted this fact in his book Origin of Species.
where?
------------------------



From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."




You fail to realize, in the arrogance of your youth, that all knowledge CANNOT be ascertained by logic and experiment. There are things that exist that CANNOT be quantified, tested or put in a jar. So, from a naturalistic, scientific platform, how do you account for these things? Also, I already have acknowledged that micro-evolution occurs. However, macro-evolution does not occur. If you have valid, scientific evidence that macro-evolution (one speies to another) occurs, then present it now.
 
The full quote:
"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Click to expand...

Your source I would suggest, is absolute bollocks.

One piece of evidence for macro-evolution is that dolphins have redundant genes for volatile odour detection.
 
Inspector, what kind of evidence would it take for you to admit evolution is real? Please tell us, we will attempt to supply you with this.

Fossil evidence? We have that. Old populations of animals giving rise to physically different populations that breed true? We have that. Animals with genetic information they could not possibly use in their current form but could in a given ancestor species? We have that also.

What more do you want?
 
inspector...so far you have been a master of misquoting and misleading... I seriously think you should contemplate this since I doubt that your jesus or god ever wanted people to lie for him.



but if you seriously want to discuss this then you should give your 'reasonable' alternative to evolution...we shall then try to find out if it is reasonable.

about your abundant evidence: if you simply type in evolution in pubmed (a scientific database) you get a result of 5928 pages filled with references. If you type in creationism you get three pages, mostly filled with articles about if creationism should be tought in schools (in the USA that is). And articles debunking creationists claims.


you could conclude from this that creationism is merely a local (only in the usa) problem. What is the problem then. The political power of a certain religious faction of the american population somehow managed to bring the unscientific creationism into science class. Is it going to change science? no...is it going to confuse people..yes.

pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
 
Last edited:
monkey, apparently you missed two points. One, this is not a discussion about Creationism or religion, but rather, evolution. Please stay on the subject. Two, if you have valid, scientific evidence that macro-evolution (one speies to another) occurs, then present it now.

clockwood, see above.

voodo, even Darwin recognized the flaws in his own argument. You simply will not acknowledge the fact that evolution is full of holes because it clashes with your presuppositions. Also, the fact that evolution, based on circular reasoning, is taught in public schools does nothing to justify it's validity. It is still a theory........and even that is debatable. BTW, the fact that dolphins have redundant genes (odor, sonar) is not evidence for macro-evolution. Similarity of function is actually a problem for the Theory of Evolution.

For instance, flying demands amazingly complex and specialized structures and instinctual skills. Yet such diverse creatures as birds, bats and many insects all fly. Evolutionists have not been able to explain the evolution of flight or even guess how it could occur. What’s more, this complex ability is found over and over in the animal world where there is no evolutionary connection possible between the flying creatures. Simply put, homologous appearance is more of a problem for the Theory of Evolution than a proof of it. Therefore, homology is actually better evidence for alternative theories, such as intelligent design, perhaps. (Bradburn, 1999)

Once again, you evolutionists keep tip-toeing around my request: show me evidence for macro-evolution (one species to another). If you can, you will become famous.
 
Last edited:
spec...you are full of it...

i am on topic since i requested your reasonable alternative to evolution...but we both know that you don't have one...or is it a secret?

Originally posted by inspector


Once again, you evolutionists keep tip-toeing around my request: show me evidence for macro-evolution (one species to another). If you can, you will become famous.
Click to expand...

i think you would be more famous if you had proof that evolution is a hoax...
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by inspector


For instance, flying demands amazingly complex and specialized structures and instinctual skills. Yet such diverse creatures as birds, bats and many insects all fly. Evolutionists have not been able to explain the evolution of flight or even guess how it could occur.
Click to expand...

the most recent articles if one would not be very lazy and type in evolution of flight in a scientific search engine ( and i didn't even bother to do an intelligent search):

Hedenstrom A

Aerodynamics, evolution and ecology of avian flight
TRENDS ECOL EVOL 17 (9): 415-422 SEP 2002

Speakman JR

The evolution of flight and echolocation in bats: another leap in the dark
MAMMAL REV 31 (2): 111-130 JUN 2001

Norell MA, Clarke JA

Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution
NATURE 409 (6817): 181-184 JAN 11 2001

Middleton KM, Gatesy SM

Theropod forelimb design and evolution
ZOOL J LINN SOC-LOND 128 (2): 149-187 FEB 2000

Hill JK, Thomas CD, Blakeley DS

Evolution of flight morphology in a butterfly that has recently expanded its geographic range
OECOLOGIA 121 (2): 165-170 NOV 1999

Garner JP, Taylor GK, Thomas ALR

On the origins of birds: the sequence of character acquisition in the evolution of avian flight
P ROY SOC LOND B BIO 266 (1425): 1259-1266 JUN 22 1999

Padian K

Evolution of flight - Early bird in slow motion
NATURE 382 (6590): 400-401 AUG 1 1996

tesy SM, Dial KP

Locomotor modules and the evolution of avian flight
EVOLUTION 50 (1): 331-340 FEB 1996

WELLNHOFER P

NEW DATA ON THE ORIGIN AND EARLY EVOLUTION OF BIRDS
CR ACAD SCI II 319 (3): 299-308 Part 2 AUG 4 1994

CHIAPPE LM

CRETACEOUS AVIAN REMAINS FROM PATAGONIA SHED NEW LIGHT ON THE EARLY RADIATION OF BIRDS
ALCHERINGA 15 (3-4): 333-338 1991


as you can see...absolutely nothing is known about this subject

edit: found some more interesting ones searching Nature:

Wing upstroke and the evolution of flapping flight
Samuel O. Poore, A. Sánchez-Haiman, G. E. Goslow
SUMMARY: Movements of the wing during upstroke in birds capable of powered flight are more complex than those of downstroke. The m. supracoracoideus (SC) is...
CONTEXT: ...presence in recently described Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous species. The evolution of this condition is thought to have been important for flapping powered flight in improving the function of wing elevation,, but the......
Nature387, 799 - 802 (19 Jun 1997) Letters to Nature

Palaeontology: Ruffling feathers
Hans-Dieter Sues
SUMMARY: The evolution of feathers and flight were generally thought to be inextricably linked. But new fossils from China show that feathers pre-dated the origin of...
CONTEXT: ...to dinosaurs. Feathers are the most distinctive attribute of living birds. Traditionally, their evolution has been linked to the origin of flight, but there have always been a few dissenting opinions. Two new studies, one published......
Nature410, 1036 - 1037 (26 Apr 2001) News and Views

Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs
Neil Shubin, Cliff Tabin, Sean Carroll
SUMMARY: The morphological and functional evolution of appendages has played a crucial role in the adaptive radiation of tetrapods, arthropods and winged insects. The origin...
CONTEXT: ...structures? And what is the developmental and genetic basis for their origin and modification? The adaptive evolution of vertebrates and arthropods to aquatic, terrestrial and aerial environments was accomplished by the invention of......
Nature388, 639 - 648 (14 Aug 1997) Review Article

Bone histology: Evolution of growth pattern in birds
Anusuya Chinsamy, Andrzej Elzanowski
SUMMARY: Living (neornithine) birds grow up rapidly and without interruption, terminating their growth within one year and, with a few secondary exceptions, starting to fly...
CONTEXT: ...tinamous. An early change in slow-growing bone tissue therefore provides new evidence of the superprecocial onset of flight in the Enantiornithes, which has been inferred from the relative length and almost complete ossification of......
Nature412, 402 - 403 (26 Jul 2001) Brief Communication

The wing of Archaeopteryx as a primary thrust generator
Phillip Burgers, Luis M. Chiappe
SUMMARY: Since the late 1800s, the debate on the origin of flight in birds has centred around two antagonistic theories: the arboreal (take-off from trees)...
CONTEXT: ...as a flier, it probably represents a relatively late stage in the evolution of bird flight, Archaeopteryx plays a central role in thedebates on the origins of flight,. Proponents of the arboreal model consider Archaeopteryx to have......
Nature399, 60 - 62 (06 May 1999) Letters to Nature

the morphogenesis of feathers
Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz, Cheng-Ming Chuong
SUMMARY: Feathers are highly ordered, hierarchical branched structures that confer birds with the ability of flight. Discoveries of fossilized dinosaurs in China bearing 'feather-like' structures...
CONTEXT: ...or hooklets; Fig. 1a) feathers can develop into a variety of forms, including downy feathers, contour feathers, or flight feathers (Fig. 1b). As in hairs, the feather follicle is composed of a dermal papilla and epidermal collar......
Nature420, 308 - 312 (21 Nov 2002) Letters to Nature

Winging their way
R. McNeill Alexander
Description: Most animal species are insects, and the most conspicuous characteristic of......
CONTEXT: ...species are insects, and the most conspicuous characteristic of the insects is that they fly. Research on insect flight has been held back by approaches that, with hindsight, seem crude and inappropriate, but the past two decades......
Nature405, 17 - 18 (04 May 2000) Book Review

Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation and flight in bats
Emma C. Teeling, Mark Scally, Diana J. Kao, Michael L. Romagnoli, Mark S. Springer, Michael J. Stanhope
SUMMARY: Bats (order Chiroptera) are one of the few orders of mammals that echolocate and the only group with the capacity for powered flight. The...
CONTEXT: ...both groups have distributions that are restricted to the Old World. Our results have implications for the evolution of both flight and echolocation in bats. First, bats and flying lemurs did not share a flying common ancestor as......
Nature403, 188 - 192 (13 Jan 2000) Letters to Nature


oh yeah...i know that not everybody has access to scientific journals, but if you are interested in any article inspector feel free to ask me to send you it. It might be worth to educate you.
 
Last edited:
macroevolution

i asked it before (how would you define macroevolution) because it is a contraversial subject:

from:Nature 409, 669 (2001)

The big picture

SEAN B. CARROLL
Macroevolution: "a vague term for the evolution of great phenotypic changes, usually great enough to allocate the changed lineage and its descendants to a distinct genus or higher taxon" - from D. J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (Sinauer, Sunderland, 3rd edn, 1998).
....blabla...
Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided. Traditionally, evolutionary geneticists have asserted that macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large, whereas some palaeontologists have advocated the view that processes operating above the level of microevolution also shape evolutionary trends. Is one of these views wrong, or could they both be right?

One obstacle to a more unified, multidisciplinary view of evolution is the vague meaning of the term macroevolution, and its different connotations in different disciplines. This is not merely a matter of semantics: scientific and broader public issues are at stake. The origins of major innovations and the underlying causes for the radiation of forms during various episodes in life's history are among the most interesting and challenging questions in biology. We must know whether, as G. G. Simpson asked, macro evolution differs fundamentally in kind or only in degree from microevolution. Furthermore, one of the latest political strategies of the creationist faction in the United States is to 'accept' microevolution but to bar macroevolution from the classroom on the misguided grounds that aspects of macroevolution are controversial and that therefore its scientific foundation is 'unproven'.
end quote...

however, i think your definition of macroevolution was closer to microevolution. You something how a new gene can appear...
i could give you evidence for this easily...do you want another list???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top