I do not want to debate evolution. This is not Youtube, this isn't Tumblr, this isn't a comments section on some poorly-written news story. This is a good forum with a good community. Let's keep it that way. You have your explanations and I have mine. As long as you don't directly interfere with scientific progress I couldn't care less. THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE.
If someone is standing in the way of scientific progress, you can get in line. I want first dibs on 'em.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081113234056AAJUOu2 as for are you fu*king kidding me? they lived in the 16th, 16th and 17th century respectively and were all educated men, back then school and church were one there was no escaping it. There's no way they could have done what they did AND be atheist. (also it's a question of holding your life dear at that point...)
Common misconception on my part I guess. Fail me. Sorry. Um. They all disliked the way the church controlled things (well, newton was much more subtle about it). Copernicus and Galileo were actually shunned by the church for their discoveries. It is most certainly not like that today I love the comment about him being honest and the church being a lie. I mean, Albert's right: the religion s of the world are lies meant to control. But he shouldn't extrapolate that to the creator - and neither should anyone else.
yes, you got my point. it's also because they were intelligent men that they managed to go away with their lives. Back then that's called being let off easy. haha, listen I don't really know about all that but I'd say after all he did, it's fair to say he has the right to extrapolate whatever the f*ck he wants
I appreciate the sentiment, however I would like to say that spreading misconceptions about how scientific theories such as evolution work is standing in the way of science. It's perhaps not as serious as the way that the catholic church suppressed astronomy and anatomy in the middle ages, but it still means that people have the wrong idea about things, then jump to the wrong conclusions, vote for the wrong politicians (whoever they may be), who are saying the wrong things, who make the wrong policies and then scientists get less funding and intellectual freedom in order to cure cancer and invent jet-packs. I understand why you may think that "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution are different things. They are not. In fact when you understand the genetics underpinning speciation, you can see that the existence of one automatically leads to the existence of the other. I'm not a biologist, but a number of my friends are, and I've had to learn a fair bit about genetic algorithms for some of my work. It's something I understand well, and more importantly, there is extremely solid experimental evidence for it (a big chunk came out in the 1980s). If you wish to discuss this, find me on teamspeak. It's a fascinating topic. I've said my part here now, and I don't want to get stuck writing another round of essays in order to debunk misconceptions.
Localized macroevolution IS microevolution. Not the other way around. The only way you can conclusively prove macroevolution is to observe a species with specific and measurable traits become a completely different species with different traits. For example, from four legs and a tail to two legs and no tail, etc. Anyway. I'm talking about the argument that life evolved over billions of years, not the circumstantial and situational evidence of the modern era. I'm in class right now, its about problem solving, and I'll be on later.
