Sign in or 

|
universaldragonlord universaldragonlord |
|
|
Dous777 |
1. RE: Evolution
Feb 24 2009, 9:36 AM EST
Evolution is random. It's not that there weren't changes, it's that there weren't successful changes and therefore the species could not evolve.
|
|
Anonymous |
2. RE: Evolution
Feb 25 2009, 6:18 AM EST
All creatures evolve and a crocodile today is different to a crocodile of pre-historic times. My point is that it is still a crocodile not a pig or a bear. A pre-historic horse is still a horse creatures evolve to fill a natural niche and give them a better chance of survival but it does not change the basic nature of the creature.
|
|
Dous777 |
3. RE: Evolution
Feb 25 2009, 12:29 PM EST
If that is your point then Darwin is still right. These creature have still evolved, as in new adaptations, but not enough new adaptations to be considered a new species.
|
|
universaldragonlord universaldragonlord |
4. RE: Evolution
Feb 26 2009, 3:26 AM EST
Im not implying that evolution dosn't exist just that spiecies do not change to the extent that an ameoba becomes a land walking mammal no matter what the time evolved Darwin makes leaps that cannot logicaly be explained.
|
|
Dous777 |
5. RE: Evolution
Feb 26 2009, 10:45 AM EST
That sounds like a similar arguement to the evolution of the eye. I believe scientists have found animals (or at least fossils) denoting all the major points of the evolution of the eye, showing complicated leaps are possible.Or you could take what I think, God gave evolution a little push. |
|
Anonymous |
6. RE: Evolution
Feb 27 2009, 10:31 AM EST
If your asking if I believe in God then the answer is yes as the first law of physics proves his existence but that is not the point I am making I just feel that sometimes science makes claims that do not stand up and although I take the point of the eye that does not justify the spiecies leap.
|
|
Dous777 |
7. RE: Evolution
Feb 27 2009, 12:46 PM EST
You have a specific example of where it doesn't add up?
|