http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2
Courtesy of Newscientist.
Courtesy of Newscientist.
It's a false premise, creationists don't agree with Darwinian evolution, they do agree with evolution per se.
creationists don't agree with Darwinian evolution, they do agree with evolution per se.
Where have you been for the last several months?
I express it this way, like other creationists saying "micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution."
There is a distinction between Darwinian evolution and observable variation within syngameons...
Discrete morphological units which are interfertile.
Well, you did morph from a zygote into your current form over the space of a few decades, so I don't see what you think is so incredible about similar changes occuring as a result of accumulated mutations over a sufficient number of generations."goo morphed into you."
I'd say microevolution implies macroevolution: you'd expect units similar to begin with to diverge in form as a result of accumulating random changes. If this doesn't occur, I'd say it was your job to propose a negative feedback mechanism within evolution that prevents speciation from occuring, as well as evidence for its existence.There is a distinction between Darwinian evolution and observable variation within syngameons, which is the same distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
So what do you do the day you find, say, species A that can breed with members of species B, and species C that can also breed with members of B, but not with A?Discrete morphological units which are interfertile.