Science, Creation & EvolutionEvolution Poll :: Clarifications...Clarifications... In a simplistic sense, true. Evolution recognizes that creatures with similar characteristics share a common ancestor. On the species level this ancestor tends to be in the more recent past. More accurately stated: bears today share some common ancestor, they are not descendents of an original bear population. Prior to the bears of today, there was no bear population for it to descend from, just a more bear-like creature that evolved into the bears of today. In a basic sense true. A bacterium has/will never evolve directly into a bear. Genetically it is indeed impossible. Evolutionists do know this and would never ague otherwise. However, the bacteria can/did evolve into something which is minutely more bear-like. That minutely more bear-like creature then evolved into something even more bear-like. That even more bear-like creature then evolved into something even more and more bear-like. Etc. and Etc. until you get a bear. Evolution happens in small changes, not all at once. spe•cies (plural spe•cies) noun Definitions: 1. biology taxonomic group: a subdivision of a genus considered as a basic biological classification and containing individuals that resemble one another and may interbreed Horses and tigers cannot have offspring, horses and donkeys can. You breed a horse and donkey, you get a mule. Mules are sterile. Horses and donkeys are a different species. Horses and tigers are a different species. Are the differences between horses and these two species the same? Would you have one believe that the differences between horses and tigers are the same as those between a horse and a donkey? Again, nobody would ague with you here. It is closed logic. Evolutionist would, however, ague that birds and other animals do share some common ancestor. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame