Rath said:
Oh man, I have had to face palm so badly in this topic already. Alright I'm not going to argue the evidence for evolution (because I know you all have probably already seen it and ignored it) but I'll correct a few falsehoods that have been posted.
1) Micro/Macro evolution are different.
They are the same thing, just viewed at different timescales. The theory of evolution provides the mechanics for small changes but over a long time these add up to big changes. Even in a short time evolution that is far more than cosmetic can occur.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
macro evolution is the change of one kind of an animal to another kind.. like a cow turning into a whale, or a dinosaur turning into a bird. these types of transformations would require a development of new traits. last time i checked, natural selection only selects. do you have any examples of natural selection creating new information that would result in theset types of changes? micro evolution is simply adaptation within the same kind. something that has been observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation#Classification_of_mutation_types
I suggest you have a look at that to understand the mechanics of evolution better. It is not simply a selection of existing traits, it is also a selection of new traits arising through mutation. In any case to try and simplify evolution down to being just natural selection is fallacious - there are other forces such as genetic drift involved as well. For example in that lizard thing I posted the structures in the stomach were indeed a new trait, the had not been observed in that species before.
2) Evolution has never been observed.
Fossil record is a perfectly good observation. Take the horse for example.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
You are I believe taking a distorted view of 'observed'. Observed does not require that we observe something as it happens, it only requires that evidence of what happened has been collected. Whether it occurs at the time of the event or 13 billion years later is not important.
all that tells me is that the horse had a common ancestor of a horse. in your opinion, does this qualify as macro evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
Is not a horse.
3) Evolution deals with the origin of life/the univserse/stars/molecules.
No it doesn't, while evolution may be used in the terms for those theories it is not the 'theory of evolution' we are talking about.
those are different kinds of evolution. evolution isn't a term that is used exclusively for the diversity of life... that being said, i dont know why youre bringing this up.
I brought it up because I thought we were discussing the theory of evoltion, not a random selection of theories that just happened to have the word 'evolution' in them?
4) Evolution is only a theory.
Actually according to the scientific view evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of this fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
shit, i forgot to read this part. ill read it later after south park.
Edit: Oh and answer the question in the title, it's the fossil record.
the fossil record? in what way? i dont think lining up fossils in the order you think it happened qualifies as evidence. is there something more to this 'fossil record' you speak of that i am not aware of?
To be honest I'm not going to argue with you, if you aren't going to acknowledge the depth and continuity of the fossil record it's up to you.
|
