DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Mister Agenda]

[Regens Küchl]

[Jaysyn]

I haven't seen this much Fail since Rick Perry was running ads.

[Faith No More]

You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin?

Ann Coulter on Darwin? Fuck me. That's like if I wrote a paper on brain surgery.

[Minimalist]

[Reforged]

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1.[/b] Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts 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?

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?

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?[/color]

1. Yes, you should go look for it on wikipedia. Try typing in "homo-erectus" and "homo-habilis".
2. Not how it works, you've completely misunderstood. Stupid question. See wikipedia.
3. No modern-day scientists are making *any* such claims that bats evolved from squirrels. Thats not macro-evolution, thats pokemon. Please do everyone a favor and type "evolution" on wikipedia instead of wasting our time with questions you can easily answer yourself but are probably avoiding the answers to.

[Faith No More]

1. Yes, you should go look for it on wikipedia. Try typing in "homo-erectus" and "homo-habilis".

Lol. I have a feeling this guy is going to be afraid to type 'homo' anything into his computer.

[mediamogul]

You're using Ann Coulter as a source about Darwin?

Ann Coulter on Darwin? Fuck me. That's like if I wrote a paper on brain surgery.

Did you read the article? It is Ann Coulter trying to make the argument that "Darwinists" are actually the ones indoctrinating their children and believing in "Darwinism" as though it were a proto-religion.

Well done Ann. You have exceeded your own bar for stupid.

Also you know it's going to be stupid when they talk about "Darwinism" as though evolution still clung to Darwinian theory. The only thing still remaining in modern evolution is "descent with modifications". Pretty much every other part of Darwinian theory has been discarded at this point.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, there's still Natural Selection, that's pretty important. The heredity stuff is much more complicated than Darwin imagined, but that's forgivable, given that he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. The main thrust still works, and that's not bad for a theory that originated 150 years ago.

[Thor]

Well, there's still Natural Selection, that's pretty important. The heredity stuff is much more complicated than Darwin imagined, but that's forgivable, given that he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. The main thrust still works, and that's not bad for a theory that originated 150 years ago.

Eh-heh-heh-heh-heh!

You said "thrust"!

Eh-heh-heh-heh!