Replies

Just to be clear though: both sides of the debate rely on the theory of spontaneous generation.
FALSE!

Evolution theory is about the slow change of existing living organisms over time.

A demonstratably false notion due to the biological need for an organism to make numerous systemic changes simultaneously to survive. For example, a creature moving from water to air would have to "evolve" more than one thing (lungs, circulatory system...) to make the shift.

In fact, evolutionary theory recently has been morphing into "burst-evolution" theory which attempts to explain the absence of "transitional" link creatures in the fossil record by saying that new creatures appeared almost "spontaneously." (Gee, sounds a lot like Creationism without that annoying concept of a God to be accountable to.)

Seems to take about as much faith to believe either religion. So I'll choose the one with a God.

Seems to take about as much faith to believe either religion. So I'll choose the one with a God.

No problem my friend, since you can obviously provide a well documented example of a new organism suddenly being created.

Evolution theory is the study of how organisms have changed over time.

They have!

If the changes of an organism is rapid (100 years) or slow (1 million years), that is only a clarification of the exact processes involved.

With Creationist theory, how does this new organism suddenly appear?

Does it shimmer with a blue light, just before it is fully formed?

Is their a loud popping sound, similar to thunder, as this new organism suddenly displaces the air?

Have you ever thought about the physical aspects (such as sound) that could be well documented by an act of Creation today?

Or, are you saying that no new organism have been created since the Earth was created, as documented in the book of Genesis?

Since the 1800s, it's been observed by biologists that the mechanism for evolution ON A SMALL SCALE was mutation of genes. (Watson and Crick in the '60's demonstrated the nature of genes, but their existence had long been hypothesized; many expected that they were protein, whereas W&C showed that they were chromosomes.)

As biologists have been BETTER able to show macro-evolution in the fossil record and in the protein and chromosomal analysis, attention has been paid to MICRO-evolutoin (or, better stated, "sexual selection," a term coined by DARWIN himself because he realized "evolution" would only be fitting for massive changes over huge periods of time).

You are right: sexual selection is better understood to occur at crisis. If thick fur is better than thin fur, the thicker-furred creatures will NOT gradually replace the thinner-furred creatures, but will probably make large strides during exceptionally harsh winters.

Also, as the focus has been more on smaller periods of time, certain mechanisms of evolution have been seen. A traditional challenge to evolution is this: Since partially evolved feathers are useless for flight, how did such a complex feature evolve? The answer is that many features have "interum" purposes. For example: The intricate features of a feather make feathers excellent for insulation. In fact, the fossil record shows tens of millions of years of fossils of feathered creatures who did not fly. Then one feathered reptile that happened to be a glider had a mutation that caused the fibers of his down to "zip" together forming a working feather.