DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Mister Agenda]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter.

No, it isn't. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living organisms devoloped from nonliving matter. Evolution is about what happens next.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts

You (or whoever you copied that from) makes it sound like the scientific community is making a bare assertion, rather than reporting what the available physical evidence shows.

that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?

Yes, and it's readily available to anyone who cares to educate themselves.

2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?

You mean like a land animal's descendants involving into whales? That happens to be a transition particularly well-illuminated in the fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?

They are talking about the descendants of one species evolving into a different species, like eohippus into the modern horse. 'Family' has a specific meaning in taxonomy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology)

---

No, those aren't creationist statements. Charles Darwin said evidence would be found in the fossils showing a whale on its way to a bear and a squirrel on its way to a bat.

This is untrue. Darwin speculated that bears who specialized in eating insects on the surface of the water might wind up the ancestors of a whale-like creature and that flying squirrels might wind up the ancestors of a more bat-like creature. He wasn't making a prediction about the future evolution of bears and squirrels, and he certainly wasn't suggesting that whales and bats had evolved from bears and squirrels.

I'm glad you at least acknowledge the idiocy of his theory and that you're so embarrassed that you're now blaming it on creationists.

We acknowledge the idiocy of your reading comprehension. He is not saying what you think he is.

Here's the weblink to a source that quoted Darwin saying it. When you get to the website, scroll down to paragraph 8.[/size]

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulte...olve/print

You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin? Ann Coulter? Are you actively trying to become more stupid?

Where's the evidence to prove any of what you're speculating? Present it on the forum for all to see.[/color][/size]

It's not speculation when it's based on evidence. It's science. It's a shame that's inconvenient for your beliefs, but the transitional series leading to whales is remarkably complete.

In case you haven't noticed, I cited two school textbooks in my opening post.[/color][/size]

And they were distinguishable from your own remarks in that they had merit.