Evolution is a myth.
Mutations exist within offspring that allows for changes to take place in the physical and psychological development of the creature.How exactly did it happen in animals? I understand natural selection, and I don't deny it can be proved in laboratory.
But, how do a species become another?
Do they "suddenly" generate another one, and they procriate among themselves (enough populace, for some reason) or with their genitors? Or doo they gradually make it to a new species (as a result of natural selection)?
If the latter is true, are there fossiles/related that can't be pointed to be from a species or another (and not be fruit of crossbreeding)?
I assumed this was a good place to ask from numerous theists x atheists debates around here.
Religion debate incoming.Don't you just love a fairy-tale?
well ti make it a even more wonderful story we can go into more detail. but I can't be bothered.And in a few million years that one worm "evolved" into billions of other life-forms and species TOTALLY DIFFERENT to it. The End.
What a wonderful story! *rolls eyes*
Not really, just wanted to make it sound less trollish =Dnice edit gamefreak. Afraid you were going to get destroyed for the fairy tale comment? lol
I r silentCus i think the same thing about the Bible and Quran =P
Actually it all started from chemicals managing to become a micro-organism and from there on some worm, then there was fish etc etc etc.I think evolution started from a worm, if I can recall correctly. not that helps answering your question though...
Well it certainly is more gullible then the one that there's an invisible man up there in the sky that created all.And in a few million years that one worm "evolved" into billions of other life-forms and species TOTALLY DIFFERENT to it. The End.
What a wonderful story!
gullible
adj gullible [ˈgaləbl]
easily tricked or fooled, example: He is so gullible that he believes everything you tell him.
See bolded part in the text above quoted, i meant it as this:Word Origin & History
gullible
1793 (implied in gullibility), earlier cullibility (1728), probably connected to gull, a cant term for "dupe, sucker" (1594), which is of uncertain origin. It is perhaps from the bird (see gull (n.)), or from verb gull "to swallow" (1530, from O.Fr. goule, from L. gula "throat," see gullet); in either case with a sense of "someone who will swallow anything thrown at him." Another possibility is M.E. dial. gull "newly hatched bird" (1382), which is perhaps from O.N. golr "yellow," from the hue of its down.
So i believe i used the right wordWell it certainly is easier to swallow (=more gullible) then the one that there's an invisible man up there in the sky that created all.