Ok, I am not a scientist by trade but I do know the dif between MICRO and MACRO evolution. The first part of your statement is proven by the second part. I have never heard a scientist refer to Micro or Macro evolution.There is absolutly no credible evidence to support Macro evolution-the complete changing of one species into a tofaly different one.Here you are correct. There is no evidence of a species changing into a totally different one. There is however much evidence of species evolving into similar but different species.By the way, anybody see on PBS recently when they discused finding bones of man that seems to point that modern man came from Central and Southern Africa and NOT from Neanderthals in France? But some people WONT accept the evidence.Actually, the findings cast doubt onto the accuracy of earlier assumptions regarding Neandertals. The whole issue is rather cloudy, and has certainly not been resolved in either direction (or any other direction for that matter). Else where on the board I posted a link to a Scientific American article that casts doubt on the doubt.Not exactly. Evolution would demand that ALL the descendants of this cat have 6 toes. Not exactly. Evolution would occur if the mutation were beneficial, causing the cats with the mutation to survive or reproduce more effectivly that the cats without the mutation. Eventually, the non-mutated would diminish in number, perhaps even vanishing, but there could still be some non-mutated descendents from the original mutated cat.So carbon dating bones that have been exposed to the elements and dirt for centuries would produce more accurate results? This is why carbon dating is done with samples from the interior of the bone. With a cloth, this is not possible.I agree that there are problems with carbon dating especialy when you can get multiple dates from the same item. Dates that vary that widly prove that the system of carbon dating is far less than an acceptable scientific test method.Just because carbon dating does not produce exactly one totally precise number does not mean that it is not useful. Imagine this scenario: you are abandoned in the desert. You are told that there is refuge in the closest mountain. You can see two mountains, one to the left, one to the right. You have no way of knowing the distance, other than what you can observe with your own eyes. If you can tell that one is closer, do you consider this useful information? Perhaps it is obvious that one is closer, but do you know how far away it is? No. Do you know how much closer it is? Not really. Does this information help you? Yes.So measurements can be helpful, even if the precission is not perfect.and evolution is a religious belief.No. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a religious belief, and in the view of many people, does not contradict most religious beliefs.David
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra