Well, Helix I have studied history for decades. Man is the reason our rain forests are disappearing at an alarming rate. The rain forests serve an essential purpose for life. Development in areas where salt marshes are being destroyed are resulting in the rise in the salinity in our oceans. I can list a plethora of environmental problems caused by the greed of men.
Whaling is restricted by International agreement because the great whales are in decline. The great sharks are decreasing in numbers because of the greed of men and the fact sharks do not reproduce at the higher levels of marine life they feed on.
Humans are the most "intelligent" animal on this planet and humans are destroying this planet.
There are many threads that deal with evolution on this message board. And so far I have not seen a viable scientific response to astronomy, geology, biology, anatomy, microbiology, physics, and other sciences that can demonstrate evolution is impossible. Evolutionists wear blinders that ignore the other sciences in order to maintain a theory that cannot be proven without accepting a lot of assumptions.
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra ... .html#tran
No reptile has been shown evolving into a bird. No lower life form has been shown evolving into a higher life form. All the transitional fossils are one species evolving into a higher level of the same species, which is not Darwinian evolution or macroevolution.
No thinking person seeking truth will deny that finches have a common finch ancestor. No thinking person seeking truth will deny that all dogs are descended from wolves.
And, BTW, you are not the first to hang their evolutionist’s beliefs on Talk Origins. So I reiterate what I have posted on more than one thread; the other scientific disciplines can demonstrate evolution is a theory that cannot be scientifically supported as a viable theory.
A quick and easy to read overview of current scientific knowledge that can demonstrate this can be found in Stobel’s “The Case for a Creator”. Now you don’t have to accept Strobel’s conclusion, but if you want to change my mind and the minds of others who have discarded macroevolution you are going to have to address what is discussed in this book. No evolutionists proponent on this message board or any other message board I have visited is willing to step into that abyss.