Science, Creation & EvolutionSomething for Tuppence: Science definedOk, first things first, let me adress the point Aineo brought up.... It's not a matter of wanting to question, it's a matter of having the BASIS to question. Like i already said, what basis is there for questioning cumulative microevolution being the mechanism for macroevolution? What barrier is there that would stop it? Prove it. Show the studies. Prove science is doing it, and THEN show why the peer review isn't trashing the scientists doing it. 150 years ago proof was put forward for the theory, it was an interesting obscure biology paper called "origin of the species" by some unknown scientist called Darwin or something. How do you think you come up with a theory anyway? You HAVE to have the evidence before you put a theory together of how it fits together. Darwin travelled the world gathering the evidence, evaluated it all and gave us evolution by natural selection. Discoveries of DNA, genes, the genome, speciation events, and the thousands of fossils that fit with the theory mean that this lie is one of the more ignorant lies one could say, since anyone that's alive is proof of evolution. They don't only show inheritence of their parents genes, they also show 300+ mutations that seperate them from their parents at birth. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame