{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/3/2015 7:13:58 AM
2
But how much longer?
The claim is that micro-evolution over a long period of time leads to a change in species. The example is fruit flies due to their short life span, but the studies and experiments show that the fruit flies are still fruit flies.
How can anyone believe a claim that inter-species evolution occurs if there is no recorded results of such thing happening? How can it be a theory if it is still only a hypothesis?
English
-
No such thing as "micro-evolution".
-
Semantics. Micro being small and evolution being physical changes. Saying there is no micro-evolution is the same as saying there is no evolution. But like I said, it's semantics.
-
There is only evolution. Therefor small changes are evidence for evolution.
-
No, what he means is "micro evolution" is a fake term. Evolutionary theory never mentions "Micro and macro evolution". They are terms made up by creationists with no credibility whatsoever.
-
And what I mean is that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are only semantics. They refer to looking at evolution on small and large scale.
-
its the same scale.
-
Millions of years, and last time I checked, modern science hasn't been around that long. We have these things called the fossil records, that do show larger changes occurring over larger amounts of time. Isn't the whole basis of religion to believe in more than you can see? Sure, we weren't there to witness those changes, but we do have evidence of them.
-
Last time I looked at the fossil record, it showed many fossils of different species put close together due to their, but there are no transition fossil between these species. An incomplete fossil record without any 'missing links' is not sufficient enough to support the hypothesis.
