Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)|
|Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,07:39)|
|I'm afraid I can't help you.|
Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.
It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.
While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
First, I would say that there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution.
In reality, we shouldn't expect to see macroevolution actually happening. There is a study that showed a plant mutation resulting the offspring being in an entirely new genus. I'll have to get back to the house, it's on my drive there.
But, again, only creationists demand something like this that is just not a requirement of evolution.
It all comes down to the artificial system of taxonomy that we use today.
It can take millions of years for a population to change at the level of the species. For example, in spite of the massive morphology changes in dogs, they are all still dogs. And we've only been breeding them for a few thousand years. When will they become 'not dogs'?
This post might help a little: Post on orders in forestaro's thread
I've also got a series of blog articles that you might find useful: Cassandra's Tears
They are mainly written for the high school level student, but there are generally a lot of references. I've also specifically talked about macroevolution a couple of times. You might also read the chapter summaries from Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which is all about how we know that common ancestry does exist. It's quite enlightening and should serve you well.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.