Your first paragraph is, from an evolutionists perspective, true. I thought by need you ment that when a species climate changes the species will suddenly need to change and thus mutations will occur specifically so that the species could survive better. You didn't exactly make yourself clear.
Also, the majority of what I know about evolution comes mainly from my biology teachers at school, so the teachers we must have different opinions on evolution if we can't even agree on what evolution is. Funny, if evolution was a fact like we are supposed to believe, you would think all the scientists would be in agreement on the basics of the theory.
:
|
I don't understand how you can accept evolution on a minor scale but reject it on a major scale. Both are the same thing, there's no barrier between the two, they both operate using the same mechanisms.
|
Yes there is a big difference between a species adapting and a species becoming a completely new species. A bird, become a new version of the same bird, is still a bird. A bacteria adapting to antibiotics, isn't even becoming a new species. Minor adaptation, which is NOT evolution in the sense I am using the word, occurs within specieal boundries. The species may begin to express traits it never required before, but it is still the same species. Evolution on a major scale is much different. It requires, over a long period of time, every single living thing on the entire planet to have evolved from one tiny cell that supposedly formed itself. There is a big difference between the two.
In micro-adaptation, species are becoming variants of the same species because one population requires different traits to survive than another population. In evolution, species mutate and thus create entirely new traits, which eventually cause the species to eventually develope into a completely new type of animal.
:
|
If you're going to debate evolution, you should at least make sure you have a basis of understanding of the issue, because you seem majorly confused.
|
I think it is very annoying that you that you must insult my intelligence just because you disagree with me. Why can't you just show me where I am scientifically wrong? You haven't done that yet.
What it boils down to is that you believe mutation and natural selection could have made the world what it is today. I disagree, since my understanding of science tells me that is impossible. We won't get anywhere to continue arguing about this part of evolution. So let's move on to other evidences, and forget about whether or not there is a biological mechansim by which it occurs.
So how about the fossil record. I'm sure you have all sorts of great evidence to throw at me.