Originally Posted by ekattan

1. Too many gaps. There exists to many gaps in the fossil records. Bush or linear tha gaps exist. In other words there exists no branch where human life could have sprouted from.

Well figure that 99.9% of the species that have existed are dead right now. There are millions of species of just bacteria alive right now. Findingg every fossil is not possible. The gaps are probably much closer than what you think. As for the branch that humans came off of it would be the mammalian one. Not much of question, the evidence for that is huge and abundant.

2. It can only be proven in a micro-evolution level. But you do bring upa good point; if our genetic material is so complex do you think it catually derived form s single celled organism?

Bacteria have more in common with us than you think. Ekaryotes have even more. So I will choose the Eukaryotes being that is the domain that we belong to. Single celled organisms such as Euglena have genetic packages that are identical to ours (as well as an eye spot that is the begining of the common eye). Specifically the ribosome family. Those are the molecules that manufacture your RNA. They are identical to ours. It is also the prefered method of genetically idenitfying bacteria and fungi. It is also used in evolutionary characterizing wich I got to do. The process is called Riboprinting. Our DNA is the same as single celled organisms, just used differently and a little bit larger as a result of transposon movement, duplication, and mutation.

3. You are not understanding my point. If us humans evolved from a single celled organism, then where did the single cell organism originate from? Evolution doesn't explain where life started just how it evolved, that's a big leap, form no life to life.

You are not listening to me then. Evolution does not deal with the Origin Of Life!!! Just the history from when it started. From bacteria to us is what it deals with, not how it started. That is another thread

4. Again with you Bush explanation. So if it was a bush what species was the root? What branch did human life sprout from? Where is that fossil or proof?

Bacterial. They are the oldest thing on the planet. Prokayotes were the first living thing we have evidence of. Then Eukaryotes which are multicellular complex organisms. And so on and so on.

You see evolution is siad to occur in a micro (genetic) and macro level (us humans) but we can only prove the micro part of it, because we must take it into faith about the macro stuff.

I am not familiar with this you are talking about. I would question your sources. Evolution is a process. Are you talking of genetic evolution and phenotypical evolution (what you see)?

Ok talked to E-dog. His question was that we cannot reproduce macro-evolution or the transition of one species into another in a lab because it happens over such a long period of time.

First off we are not out to prove it. Only explain what happens in nature over time.

Second. The observation of characteristics from one species to another is easily observed. But it is done through analysis of species living today and in the past. Genetically, morphologically, and physical evidence of these transitions are everywhere. But to reproduce them in the lab would take some sort of time machine and that hasn't been invented yet. So observation of every second of a million year process is not going to happen nor do I want to undertake it. But analyzing the past seems like a much more efficient way to spend my time. And this analysis has shown that macro-evolution happens and is in essense not distinguishable from evolution. This micro/macro debate from people trying to tear apart evolution is not something that is even used. The terminology is dated and has been discarded. Evolution is a process that aplies to time obervable and fossil analysis.

You are not going to take a thousand fruit flies in a jar and come back and see they have all turned into monkey-elephants.

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

The only proof of macro-evolution scientists can come up with are fossils, which is not enough or not even conclusive enough, too many gaps.

But I will take Darwin's word for it in faith. NOT!

Were talking about Darwin people, the same guy who married his causin. They should have studied his kids for evolutionary purposes.

going by darwin's natural selection theories wouldn't that mean that all people that had an "advantage" over others would reproduce and the others wouldn't yes? if natural selection was more evident now in the human race wouldnt that mean that ugly people wouldn't reproduce...?

Originally Posted by ekattan

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

The only proof of macro-evolution scientists can come up with are fossils, which is not enough or not even conclusive enough, too many gaps.

But I will take Darwin's word for it in faith. NOT!

Were talking about Darwin people, the same guy who married his causin. They should have studied his kids for evolutionary purposes.

Example of macro-evolution.

Development of wings in bees. At first they were small and developed as a method of thermoregulation. Then as selection for larger bees came larger wings. As the wings became large enough for flight, that is what they were used for

http://www.ulg.ac.be/morfonct/mem/rui/abstract018.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.dino.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO4...po&Mode.2.HTML
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macr.html

So here are some examples for you. The only people that say there is not evidence for macro-evolution are just out to tear down evolution and not looking at the evidence itself.

Seriously who has told you that there is no evidence for macro-evolution? Those theories have been DEVELOPED from observations in science. Not created and hunted for evidence supporting it. That is not how it works. Someone is filling your head with nonsense.

Originally Posted by Lil SmacK

going by darwin's natural selection theories wouldn't that mean that all people that had an "advantage" over others would reproduce and the others wouldn't yes? if natural selection was more evident now in the human race wouldnt that mean that ugly people wouldn't reproduce...?

No. We can have genetic drift but natural selection works on poplulations under stress. In the U.S. and other developed countries we are not under environmental stress. But if you go to Africa or extremely underdeveloped portions of the world. People that are more resistant to disease and are able to hunt food much better are the ones that will reproduce much more.

where are the transitional forms?

Originally Posted by CraftierPantz

where are the transitional forms?

An individual that shows characterisitcs unique to two other species.

Dont act like you know what you are talking about Achilles.

Originally Posted by cthulu4769

Dont act like you know what you are talking about Achilles.

Don't make me kick you in the nuts.