ppb
Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006
|
| Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,11:04) | | Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05) | | So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to. |
So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution? |
For the ToE, the only difference between micro and macro evolution is loads of time. There is lots of evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record. Take a look at Tiktaalik as one example of macroevolution. Tiktaalik is but one stop in the transition from fins to limbs. That's macroevolution.
--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman
|
