(October 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.

Surely you expected nothing more from him, Rhythm?

How many times must this image be posted in this forum?

Ironically, I saw Kent Hovind use the cover of that magazine as "proof" that scientists were seriously questioning evolution.

(October 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: I am struggling to find the right word as I don't believe in evolution, I know it but I Can't find the correct word, can somebody help me?

Science isn't based on belief, hence your lack of finding an accurate word. Since you've asked for a word, I'll offer unintellectual:

unintellectual: 1. not expressing or enjoying mental activity
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unintellectual

Let's see. You don't like using the phrase "believe in" to describe your acceptance of the theory of evolution. Good. That phrase taints anyone who uses it as backward and ignorant.

Consider what is known of the natural world. The question should be: "short of magic, how could life on earth have come to be as we find it?" Evolution is by far the best natural explanation yet conceived of. It fits beautifully with all the relevant evidence in every field.

So how should we express our endorsement of this theory? We accept it, advocate its acceptance by others, recognize its superiority to competing explanations, we have faith in its predictive powers as a theory. I don't know. But I refuse to say I "believe in it".

May seem the great diversity of creatures in the world is far from the mere act of nature. This why you don't "believe" in evolution. But on the other hand it is unimaginable that every type of creatures had popped into existence spontaneously !

If you don't "believe" in evolution, that's okay, because maybe it is hard to imagine it and its processes over billions of years. But direct creation of every species is totally implausible and can't be "believed" in at all events !

Have I been gone too long? Because the purpose of this thread is really escaping me.

(October 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Gambit Wrote: Have I been gone too long? Because the purpose of this thread is really escaping me.

Apparently people missed you (I think), but I joined too recently to know why. So...hi?

(October 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Gambit Wrote: Have I been gone too long? Because the purpose of this thread is really escaping me.

Apparently people missed you (I think), but I joined too recently to know why. So...hi?

Because I'm fucking awesome, is why.

(October 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm)Polaris Wrote: Well there are two types of evolution: macroevolution, which is much easier to accept, and microevolution.

The key with macroevolution is taking the evidence and extrapolating a pattern.

Microevolution is more about taking the theory of evolution and trying to assert it is happening currently in a certain species over a very limited amount of data from genetic divergence within a control group over time period significantly less than what should be used to determine if evolution is occurring.