Quote Originally Posted by Sharla
I don't believe the theory of macro evolution suggests a plant should be able to suddenly become an animal or an insect. Macro evolution is talking about a new species forming. Plants like rice and barley are different species.

Never have I ever heard of any scientist claiming a rice plant will evolve to be a mammal. Unless it occurred over millions of years as a consequence of the evolution of many intermediate species. Arguing that says absolutely nothing to disprove evolution.

new appendages can happen. We've all heard of people born with a sixth toe and 2 headed snakes etc.

A caterpillar will have exactly the same genetic sequence as the butterfly it becomes. It's just a growth and development stage like a human baby in a womb or a chick in it's egg so i have no idea of what you were trying to say there.

Fossils and molecular biology do offer support for the theory of evolution. I think I've explained that already.

Sure fossil records are still being pieced together. But so is medicine and computer science etc etc. Dealing with and finding old fossils and analysing them is a science. Something has had a long time to degrade - it takes a lot of work to assess and analyse. it doesn't mean it wasn't there in the first place and it doesn't mean the pieces won't fit together more completely as we learn more. You want to see all the pieces to believe in something then you'll understand why not everyone shares YOUR beliefs. Time will produce more evidence and no doubt you'll keep saying it's all crap no matter how much there is!
Hey Sharla, I think you mistunderstood me slightly. First off the theory of macro evolution DOES suggest a plant can become an animal, we are after all according the theory merely highly evolved blue-green algae that once floated in primordial soupy sea.

Your caveat of 'unless it occurred over millions of years' I emphasised in my last post. If these changes did occur slowly over millions of years then where are the fossils? Dinosaurs evolved slowly into birds over millions of years........ok then so why do we have fossils of dinosaurs and fossils of birds but of the millions of years in between we have nothing. And this goes for every species not just birds and dinosaurs.

As to the appendeges you are completely misundrstanding me. I'm not talking about an extra toe or even a head I'm talking about appendages that are new to the organism, your wheat may produce ears of corn but it surely can't produce an actual ear because the code is not there.

Fossils and molecular biology support evolution? No they support adaptation within a species and limited transmutation between closely related species of which I agree 100%

The fossil record still being pieced together is irelevent, it's not that we don't have enough evidence to understand evolution yet it's the precise opposite we have too much and it's all against it!

Firstly it disobeys the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, secondly the fossil record is virtual proof positive that it hasn't occured, thirdly molecular biology shows that nothing can just appear out of nowhere or suddenly change but that reams of genetic code within the DNA must first be present in an organism for change to occur. We also know that these changes don't just randomly occur, if they did biochemistry and medicine would be impossible!

The case against evolution is mounting all the time. It's fascinating to trace the historical development of evolutionary thought and the evidences for it from the time Lamarck and Darwin's grandfather Erasmus to the present day.

All of the evidence for evolution as presented in Darwins day is no longer accepted within the evolutionary community, in fact every couple decades or so all the preceding evidence gets thrown out and revised and new evidence is brought in. The universe has aged around a billion years every decade in the last hundred years to fit the ever changing evolutionary theories.

All of our old so called ancestors Neanderthal, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man etc have all been dismissed and the more recent findings the australopithicenes, homo habilis, homo erectus etc are going the same way.

American evolutionists led by the now deceased Stephen Jay Gould proclaim the Dawkins form of neo Darwinisiam dead due to lack of fossil evidence whilst Dawkins and the molecular geneticists decry that Gould's puncuated equilibrium theory is scientifically impossible.

Both camps basically argue the scientific impossibility of the other's beliefs and guess what.......they are both right!