What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

[Booh!]

RockSmith372 said:

Booh! said:

RockSmith372 said:

dsister said:

I thought that by saying I don't accept macroevolution that it also implies that I don't accept that life has been around for a billion years.

Well Macroevolution is because speciation(changes in between species), which scientists have observed numerous times. The main question for creationists is whether or not they accept an old age earth or a young earth. Is your religion the reason why you don't accept the old age earth model or is it something observable in nature that makes you question it? If it's religious issues, then I cannot talk much since there would be no point since there would be bias involved, but if it's something in nature that makes you question the old earth model, ask me and I will try my best to answer.

To say the truth none ever observed speciation...

Are you kidding? Since there are so many observed speciation, I am just going to link a site showing you all the observed speciation you need. Most are bacteria/single celled organisms due to fast reproductive rates, allowing time for speciation to be much quicker, but there are observed speciations in animals too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That's a perfect example of what I already said: a dogmatic approach to science can only hurt science. The first point of that faq: "Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization" is not speciation, the first example is about Oenothera gigas and Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera gigas is not classified as a species (nor as a subspecies, it's just a mutation) anymore, while Oenothera lamarckiana is a defunct name for Oenothera glazioviana (so that faq uses outdated infos) -> http://plants.usda.gov/java/ClassificationServlet?source=profile&symbol=OENOT&display=63. Polyploidy occurs in humans too -> http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/Bio 100/Bio 100 Lectures/Genetics- Human Genetics/human.htm (and no, polyploid humans are not considered a different species). About the speciations in plant species not involving polyploidy, that article doesn't mention the names of the new species. The maize example is quite laughable: a well known effect of inbreeding is the reduction in fertility.

As for the animals, it's all about those damned fruit flies: what's the name of the new species of fruit flies created from the drosophila melanogaster?