Where did you hear that? It is totally a scientific term.Micro/macro evolution is not scientific, it's a bridging idea by religions to explain some parts of evolution, while denying others.
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Where did you hear that? It is totally a scientific term.Micro/macro evolution is not scientific, it's a bridging idea by religions to explain some parts of evolution, while denying others.
You deny that species can eventually evolve into different species. You deny human ancestors. It's a religious ideology, not backed by science. As @GaryE said, we can't argue with blind faith, and religion is one of the topics that are against the updated rules.Where did you hear that? It is totally a scientific term.
My original question was not to imply a missing link.Perhaps I could have worded better what I said.
I do not believe that the common interpretation of what H. neanderthalensis was is correct
What they call Neanderthals were simply ancient humans who were VERY human. Not the missing link between man and beast.
I guess that goes both ways. You can not argue with blind science. Science falsly so called.You deny that species can eventually evolve into different species. You deny human ancestors. It's a religious ideology, not backed by science. As @GaryE said, we can't argue with blind faith, and religion is one of the topics that are against the updated rules.
What scientific proof do you have that microevolution can lead to that?So what scientific proof do you have that microevolution (which we have agreed exists) cannot lead to individuals that cannot interbreed?
Finally some back up lolYes it is micro-evolution, not macro evolution because they are losing genetic information, not gaining
But you can. You can examine the fossils yourself, hold them in your own hands! You can read the papers, you can look at the evidence with your own eyes. If you could somehow disprove evolutionary theory, you'd be winning prizes and have your name in the history books.I guess that goes both ways. You can not argue with blind science. Science falsly so called.
Genetic mutations happen all the time. Constantly. Most aren't beneficial and end up not being maintained, but some turn out to be useful, and become more prevalent in the gene pool.Yes it is micro-evolution, not macro evolution because they are losing genetic information, not gaining
just a friendly discussionGuys this is dangerously close to being shut down by the mods
You seem to think that im alone in my ideas...But you can. You can examine the fossils yourself, hold them in your own hands! You can read the papers, you can look at the evidence with your own eyes. If you could somehow disprove evolutionary theory, you'd be winning prizes and have your name in the history books.
You didn't answer - are you saying that human evolution is a lie? A conspiracy by scientists that no one has blown the whistle on? Why would all these scientists from different disciplines and all over the world lie about it?
You seem to think that im alone in my ideas...
Yes, human evolution is a lie. There are plenty of scientists that believe like me.
The feelings are mutual.I'm leaving this discussion now, there's no arguing with blind faith.
Final word - some religions isolate their members and frankly, brainwash them to keep them in line. The trick is to work out who is motivated to lie and why.