Do you think Darwin is right

[jv103]

mrstickball said:

jv103 said:

mrstickball said:
Darwinian macro-evolution has been proven wrong in the form that Darwin argued it was in. It's not a gradual process that changed monkey into man (as seen in the made-up sketches that we all know of apes turning into neanderthals, into humans). His theories on micro evolution have indeed been proven right....So it's a mixed bag on what Darwin did for evolutionary theory.

darryl - Some Darwinists (especially in the scientific community) use Darwinism to attack IT/Creationism, so neither side of the argument are clean when it comes to targeting the other side.

 Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution cannot be seperated. Think about it. lol

Yes they can. The diversification of a subspieces (such as various breeds of dogs) is observable, and rather easy. However, it's a little bit tougher to observe evolution at the species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. The further you go back, the fewer records we have.

The issue is that many Darwinists/Evolutionists take is that 'well, since we can see evolution between subspecies of dogs, it must mean that we evolved from inorganic matter!' - despite the fact that such a claim is very, very implausible.

Oh, hey, Akuma, if ID is such a waste of time, mind telling me how the universe began? And exactly what theory should we teach in classrooms, then?

You are not getting my point. Micro-Evolution = evolution at cellular level - i.e. single cells. Macro-Evolution = Micro-evolution compounded. That's all. It doesn't mean anything if you personally don't believe it. All you need is variation (always starts at the micro-levle) and then it builds up to the macro level. It just takes much longer for obvious reasons (mainly the chances that any mutation would avail anything useful).

Watch this video. He's a bit combative. It explains micro vs macro.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc