Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.
There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.
The first age:
The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.
The second age:
The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.
The third age:
The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.
What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.
With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.
Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.
1) There were extinction level events so great that evolution would have had to start over again this is false.Many species survived the KT event and no I'm not going to list them alphabetically with their geographic location the information is readily available do your own homework. Insects such as the cockroach, dragonfly and centipede and many small insectivore mammals, the largest air breathing animal being the crocodile. There has been no known event so great that evolution would have had to start over again in over a billion years.The reason many of these animals have remained relatively unchanged is not because they are perfect, just good enough not to have to adapt. The more hardy an organism is the slower it will evolve.
First off listing the animals was a joke, lighten up.
I never said but you assumed I said that all animal life ended. I stated there was a mass extinction. If you notice not one animal with over 4 legs and 50 pounds survived. So this argument is based on your assumption not my words. Using your logic, man is a very fragile being. it should be evolving every few thousand years but we have no evidence of this.
2) That geological and climatological instability would have somehow hindered the evolutionary process.In fact these instabilities are necessary part of the evolutionary process and the more instability to a point the faster the process occurs. Geological instability separates populations and climatological instability forces adaptation.
So when the atmosphere was mostly carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide and there was less than 5% free oxygen floating around all these creatures breathed it and were fine? Our atmosphere has been rich in oxygen for only the last billion years or so. The animals that created this rich oxygen atmosphere died off because the air became toxic to them. Too much oxygen not enough Sulfur. How did this happen the animals lived on sulfur and consumed it all. Then the carbon breathing animals and plants took over until they consumed most of the carbon and they started to die off. We show up breathing oxygen and giving off carbon dioxide. Bringing a slight balance. The animals that live in the sea could not survive when the oceans were rich in carbonic acid. Some of the sulfur consuming animals live today around undersea volcanic vents. Crabs, shrimp, calms to name a few. Each age has had its own atmosphere for the creatures to breath and thrive in. Because humans are water based we could not survive in a sulfur or carbon rich atmosphere. All of the explosion of life that we live with today had to arrive here in the last billion years, with the Snowball Earth theory that would exclude all land mammals until the Earth warmed up because it was so cold here that oxygen fell like snow and if it was cold enough to freeze oxygen then what did the animals breath? That would suggest that all the life we see today showed up after the Snowball Earth time period which started 700 million years ago. The dinosaurs were the dominant species until 65 million years ago which leaves us just 65 million years for all this life to evolve. Man has a written record going back 10 or 12 thousand years. That is the time line and climatologically we have evidence for and have to deal with.
So once you go above the KT boundary where are the fossil records of man? Yes, there were three different types of sapiens that were around at roughly the same time but two of them died out. Where are the bones? We burry our dead, even if the others species of man didn’t do this we would have found more than 10 intact skeletons world wide that date back before us? We know from fossil records that they breathed air as we did so they could not have been from the previous age. There simply is not enough time for this evolution thing to work as described by Mr. Darwin. Seeing as we have to adapt rapidly in order to keep up with the climate change we should be seeing more evolutionary changes than we have seen.
It's surprising how many people don't get this and ask questions like "if man evolved from apes why do we still have apes". And evolution is absolutely not "hotly debated among biologist. There's lively debate over the various possible mechanisms on how it occurred but not if it occurred. It is considered the unifying theory in biolog.
If that is true as you suggest then why is it that most will shy away from Mr. Darwin and his theories? THey come up with other theories. The survival of the fittest has gone by the wayside.
Says who? On what scientific basis do you conclude this? Who set the rate-of-change meter?
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
I see your point but don't get angry at me, Re-read my original post I laid it all out there. I am just trying to point out that the supposed billions of years it is supposed to take for evolution to occur didn't happen according to other scientific evidence. The time line is too short. When faced with evidence that conflicts with the theory the theory has to be discarded or changed. Based on the evidence most of the evolutionary process had to take place in the last 500 million years, not the last two billion or more years we have been told it takes for evolution to take place. A lot of it could have happened under the ice in the oceans but the land animals could not have thrived until the end of the big ice age and then there were other ice ages after that. someone has to be wrong.
Either the astrophysicists, paleontologists and geologists are wrong, and they have strong evidence to back them up, or evolution as stated is wrong with little evidence and a weak theory. Take your pick I myself lean towards the evidence. For all land animals to have crawled out of the sea to become so diverse it is hard to believe it happened in so short a time frame and not leave any fossil record for us to find and no transitional species for us to see. Did all evolution halt suddenly. Now look at the plant life on the planet the trees support us by providing oxygen for us to breath while we provide the carbon dioxide for them to grow. I can only think of one plant that breaths nitrogen on a planet that’s atmosphere is 80% nitrogen. Don’t you find that just a bit strange?
"Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." (Charles Darwin)
Even Mr. Darwin did not expect people to believe his observatins and conclusions. If science was so close mindd back then now that they have accepted his theory what makes you think they will abandon it so quickly for another theory or admit that the theory they support is now incorrect?
Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution.
You've provided no evidence to support these two statements.
Paladin77, why do so much research only to know so little? Go read a textbook on evolutionary analysis if you are really curious what evolutionary biologists think. Personally, I think ecology and other big things biology can be a lot of hocus pocus in practice. (Sometimes they do useful conservation work, but look at this: http://beheco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/5/668. Articles such as these almost always describe questionable methods.) But evolutionary theory is quite sound.
Paladin77, why do so much research only to know so little? Go read a textbook on evolutionary analysis if you are really curious what evolutionary biologists think. Personally, I think ecology and other big things biology can be a lot of hocus pocus in practice.
You missed the point of my article. As Mr. Darwin states evolution is my issue and all of you are swiftly saying I need to read evolutionary theory written by other people. I agree with you that most of the work done on the subject is crap but it pays their bills.
Even when I go to the website you suggested I find corroboration with my article. An example is listed below.
“Although it is generally accepted that major changes in the earth's history are significant drivers of phylogenetic diversification and extinction, such episodes may also have long-lasting effects on genomic architecture. Here we show that widespread reductions in genome size have occurred in multiple lineages of mammals subsequent to the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, whereas there is no evidence for such changes in other vertebrate, invertebrate, or land-plant lineages. Although the mechanisms remain unclear, such shifts in mammalian genome evolution may be a consequence of an increase in the efficiency of selection against excess DNA resulting from post-KT population-size expansions. Independent historical changes in genome architecture in diverse lineages raise a significant challenge to the idea that genome size is finely tuned to achieve adaptive phenotypic modifications, and suggest that attempts to use phylogenetic analysis to infer ancestral genome sizes may be problematical”.
So even trying to backtrack through DNA we find that they have yet to explain the explosion of life after KT. It tells me that they are struggling to find a way to prove evolution and the new tools don’t help their cause. Since this paper was published yesterday after three months of peer review I would have to say it is as up to date as we can get. The earlier suggestion that the environment was the trigger for evolution is clearly being explored through biology and another dead end was found. Biology can tell you a lot of things the one thing they can’t explain is where we came from and how we got here.
Back to my point. Mr. Darwin suggests that evolution happens over long periods of time making gradual changes until a new species is formed DNA has not proven this, fossil records does not show this, biology does not support it when you get down and actually look at the data.
Diawa, below is what I am talking about.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The PremiseDarwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]
Footnotes:
A long time can not be a scant half billion years because there is not enough time for each change to take place without leaving a fossil or biological record. The DNA goes back as far as there is material to test it and there is nothing discovered to support Mr. Darwin. Paleontologists have not found fossil records that show the transition species. Geologists are saying the Earth is renewing itself and we can only go back 4.5 billion years in some places because of that renewal. Once the rocks are melted there is no more record.
Diawa, remember according to Mr. Darwin, all species on the planet started from the same non-living matter and split from there to the diversity we see today. Please show me the tree that evolved through natural selection into an elephant or the fish that evolved through natural selection into man. There had to be a long time to make this happen or we would still see it all happening today or we would have fossil records showing this diversity. Science has become so sophisticated now that it is very hard to hide the mistakes that everyone that believes in evolution support. Since you say evolution can happen in less time or at least you question my suggestions that evolution needs more time, what do you suggest as a time frame for chemicals floating in a primordial soup to become alive and then evolve into the trillions of species we have today?
Happy days I have just received a letter from a publisher that wants to publish my book!!!!!!
happy happy day! They like it, they really really like it!! I feel like a kid when I got my first two doctorates, almost as happy as when I watched my children being born!!!!!!!!!! Sorry folks I have never published a work of fiction before all my stuff was technical junk. While this was a labor of love, and they liked it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry this is not the correct forum for such childish display but it feels so good! I just got told by my neighbor to shut up. I was dancing in my driveway screaming with joy. I am calming down now. Okay, ladies and gentlemen and you too mommie (smile) I am proud to announce that my book has been accepted for publication I will soon become a published author of fiction. If my mother were only around to see this day. Thank you for your indulgence, we will now return to our regularly scheduled debate.
happy happy day! They like it, they really really like it!!
I feel like a kid when I got my first two doctorates, almost as happy as when I watched my children being born!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry folks I have never published a work of fiction before all my stuff was technical junk. While this was a labor of love, and they liked it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry this is not the correct forum for such childish display but it feels so good! I just got told by my neighbor to shut up. I was dancing in my driveway screaming with joy. I am calming down now.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen and you too mommie (smile) I am proud to announce that my book has been accepted for publication I will soon become a published author of fiction. If my mother were only around to see this day.
Thank you for your indulgence, we will now return to our regularly scheduled debate.
Congratulations! Though "and you too mommie (smile)" has me slightly confused.
The main problem that I have always had with evolution is rather simple and is something that I've heard from scientists as well. (Sorry, no I don't have a quote and I don't feel like spending hours searching for something that I heard over ten years ago.) The biggest problem with evolution as a science is genetics. How our genes work is set to weed out mutations. Meaning that only healthy DNA will be passed on to the next generation (also known as Survival of the Fittest by most). Now, I know this is part of Darwin's theory, and this part I have no problme with, however he also contradicts his own theory. It is thought that all life evolved from one organizm which came from... well they don't really know.
Anyways, the way DNA works is that the dominant genes (healthy) will be passed down and the undominate genes (usually mutations, though some other traits are simply not dominant) will be weeded out. Species have been known to adapt to their surroundings. You have cats that are native to hot regions that have no hair and cats that are native to cold regions that have more hair. However, you can't take a cat and put it anywhere and expect it to become a dog. Species change, but they don't cross into another species. This is the biggest problem that I, along with the scientists I mentioned, have with the evolutionary theory. This has not been proved and in fact even with genetic modification they can come up with one species or another, but they can't come up with a combination of the two, such as the fish with legs which is part of Darwinistic symbology. You can't have characteristics of two different species, it doesn't work. If someone can prove to me that it's possible, feel free, but so far I don't see the evidence.
What are you talking about? A "scant" half billion years? As in 500 million? This is like twice as far back as dinosaurs from jurassic park.
The quote you cited is a little complex. Probably, as you stated, because the scientists are just trying to pay the bills and have to impress people to make them think they are big important people deserving of money. All it means is that the amount of "junk DNA" is subject to change and shouldn't be used to compare pre and post mass extinction species without considering that. They have no clue why this happens.
Actually, they don't even know why we have "junk DNA".
Actually it is government grant money most seek because they get to live off the money for years. If you get a grant it usually includes living expenses. That is how all that crap came out about global warming. Once the grant money dries up they move on to the next hot topic item. If you are for global warming you get grant money, if you are against global warming you get grant money from the other side of the argument. Well, the money for evolution is going out from different groups including the government both pro and con.
It was not until that time period did we start to see all the other life forms expand. If evolution is a long term process as stated by Mr. Darwin then 500 million years is not enough time to start with one species and have it explode into all we have today. a trillion species most do not have a fossil record they just showed up. Were all of them just hiding until the dominant species died out? How did they survive the mass extinction?
Look at it like this, all the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, the speculation is a rock hit the Earth causing a dust cloud of volcanic ash choaking them out, and causing an ice age that lasted a few million years. When the dust setteled and the ice thawed we have all these animals show up. So it is not just 500 million years it is closer to 50 million years and man showed up 10 to 12 thousand years ago. 500 million years ago is the Cambria exploson where fossil records show sea life that is dfferent than what we see today.
I would love to see the new time line for evolution because no one seems to agree on one.
On the basis of what evidence is 500 million years, or 50 million years for that matter, 'not enough time'?
Whether you think so or not, Paladin, none of these 'contentions' disprove the theory of evolution. As evidence is developed and understood, theories get modified or replaced. But until & unless you have an alternative theory that better accounts for the known evidence, evolution remains the best available explanation of the observed phenomena. The fact that we can't quite know everything that happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and every year since, is not an argument.
Paladin did a great job explaining all this since my putting up that link I won't belabor the point except to say.....it's not about being glad that this teacher was "punished" (if you call his hand being slapped) but that justice was finally served because our kids have been the brunt of these teachers for years and it's been very frustrating for Christian families. It sounds like this particular teacher is very opinionated against Christians and I'm sure this was not the only occurance in his 20 years of teaching. Hopefully a lesson was learned here.
The kids can't stand up in the government schools anymore and give their opinons on their belief system as they are quickly hushed up. So why should teachers in authority use their position to try and indoctrinate their lack of religious beliefs instead of educate which is what we are paying them to do?
I think teachers should be more about facts than opinions unless they're going to be fair and balanced in using these opinions.
Nothing personal, but creationism as science is nonsense. The teacher was quite correct. That he insulted someone's sensibilities by using the word 'superstitious' is too bad, but hardly defamatory or worthy of a lawsuit. He didn't force anything on anybody. Creationism, as we've argued about ad nauseum here, has no place in a science curriculum for a very simple reason - it's not science, even when pretending to be so under the rubric of intelligent design.
He said alot more than that Daiwa. It's just that only certain comments could be used in a court of law. There are Christian teachers that can't say half of what this guy has been saying in defense of their faith without the threat of being fired.
He used his position as one in authority to berate and mock a student's faith. That in itself is unacceptable as the court agreed.
I have no problem with creationism not being taught in school as long as the schools stay out of origins all together....but they don't. They teach one side without the other even though they have no proof in the humanistic teaching either. Both have to be taken on faith.
I never said it was a science. It is a belief held by a lot of people and protected by the laws of the land. The teacher violated the laws of the land by doing what he did. He was found guilty by two courts if I remember correctly because it went to the local court system before it went to district court. I could be wrong. My article had nothing to do with creationism or ID. So what is your complaint with what I wrote? I take what Mr. Darwin wrote and showed that it could not have taken the billions of years as taught in the school system. I did not go to creationists sites for my information I went to Harvard, NYU, and text books for my information. I quoted from the Oxford site that was given to me here on this thread. I used the leaders of those scientific disciplines to show that the theory has too many flaws in it. The time lines I used were from the Scientists not me or some anti-evolution site. Yet you still argue not with the facts presented but with the thought that I may be promoting creationism. I gave my theory, the universe was created by God he did not like what was here and wiped out the dominant species and put us here. That would explain the fossil records, or lack of them depending on what you are looking for.
Mr. Darwin, I quoted, believed that evolution was a gradual very slow process. Well what does he mean by slow? You tell me. Slow for a fruit fly is different than slow in geological time. If you take an ocean of primordial soup stated as fact by my professor, and have something in that soup somehow get the spark of life into a one celled organism. Then this one celled organism self replicates after it has done this enough times one of them mutates into something else and begins to self replicate creating a new species. How long a time line should I give for the one celled thingy becomes something new? Then how long do we give for enough new things become something else until you have fish, shellfish, sea mammals, sea plants, and then they move on land and continue to become new and different things. While this is happening the makeup of the oceans is continuing to change from fresh to stagnant, to a primordial soup to a salt sea, to what we have now. Every change in the ocean would kill off most of what was living there as evidenced by fossil records. Animals fed on the sulfur in the oceans that were like sulfuric acid, when that was consumed they died and a new animal came around and fed on the carbonic acid until there is so little those animals are now dying off. They sink to the bottom of the sea and their components get shoved back into the center of the Earth wiping out most traces of them. The same issues occur with land animals and plants. Our atmosphere and oceans did not become like what we know until a billion to a half billion years ago. So you tell me, is 10,000 years enough time to create all these species using natural selection? A million years? You tell me what is acceptable to you? I ask this because everything I have studied on the subject says that there is only a 500 million year window for all our life to have formed, and though that is a long time for humans it is only a short time for the planet. Using the logic of natural selection why are humans the only intelligent beings here? Why not more animals that can speak and create things and have abstract thought rather than instinct?
My article was about Mr. Darwin and what he wrote and how modern SCIENCE has proven it to be false, It has nothing to do with ones belief or lack of belief in the God of their choice.
Paladin77 posts:
I'm curious where would that put Adam and Eve and the subsequent Fall on your time scale?
Fair enough. Others took it on that tangent.
Science has not proven evolution false. Nothing you have said, none of the claims of any of your sources prove evolution is false. Some people have arbitrarily decided that evolution requires some minimum time course, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary all around them. No better theory to explain the observed phenomena of speciation has been put forward. Certainly not by you.
Paladin77 writes:
daiwa posts #113
What "known" evidence of Darwin's "amoeba to man" evolution is that? What is the "observed phenomena"? Is it true or only "perceived" as true by some true blue evolutionist believers.
Thus far as far as I can tell, man's bodily "evolution" is incompatible with science. Darwin's evolution, that man evolved from lower forms of life, has always been a guess, pure conjecture, without any real evidence in its favor. intermediate forms are missing and strict proof is entirely wanting. All attempts to justify Darwin's theory has been discredited.
Even in years long before modern genetics and microbiology, as far back as 1914, Professor Bateson of the British Association, wrote, "We biologists have come to the conviction that the principle of natural selection cannot have been the cheif factor in determining species." A german biologist, Driesch, said, "For men of clear intellect, Darwinism has long been dead." Another German, Bumuller wrote, "The testimony of comparative anatomy is decidedly against the theory of man's descent from apes."
My biggest gripe is that Darwin's guess has been in science textbooks and classrooms as demonstrated "fact".
I'd answer if there was a chance in hell you'd give a rip. Your ears and mind are simply closed to any possibilities outside your literal belief system. So I'll save my fingertips.
If you can provide quotes from or links to any science textbooks that present Darwin's theory of evolution as established 'fact', I'll join you in protesting to the publisher and any school board that approved them.
If I can grab some time tomorrow I'll look because I've seen them. I can't remember which books but I'll go on a hunt and see if I can come up with some along with Lula. After some of Darwin's claims were found to be in error we still had them printed in the textbooks that the kids were still reading as established fact.
Just don't expect me to lobby them to include ID as a viable alternative theory.
@ Paladin77, you might be right about evolutionary biologists being wrong about the timeline. They get stuff wrong all the time. Scientists aren't different from other people. Usually they came from wealthy families or a culture conducive to producing a scientist (sometimes they are just weird), but I really doubt they are biologically better in any substancial way. They certainly are not gods. Heck, they can't even agree on what a species actually is. It's just arbitrary (biological, phylogenetic, and morphological species concepts often even give three different stories, which means that what species are is a matter of perspective).
But evolution does occur as changes in allele frequency in a population. This has been observed. Google it. And if a species can't even really be defined, then that's pretty much all evolution is. To say that because evoltionary biologists are no smarter than normal people and can't figure out the timeline means the whole theory of evolution is wrong, however, does not make sense.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
