Originally Posted by thewelcomewagon

This may be a change in the subject but I have some questions.

I do believe in micro-evolution and natural selection obviously because they have been proven. I may not know every detail about evolution but I want to try to understand.

I do not believe in macroevolution and the common ancestor part of evolution. To me there is no proof good enough for me to believe it (maybe like atheists or agnostics with Christianity or any other religion) there is no fossil proof that I've heard or seen of but if there is please correct me. And my biology teacher said that we don’t see evolution because it happened so slowly but how come we don’t have fossils of species when they are evolving into others like fish into snakes, she said that we don’t have those fossils because the process happens to fast and fossils are hard to come by.

So my questions are

Are there fossils when a species is evolving into another?
and
What do you think about my teacher’s explanation for no fossils?

Originally Posted by davobrosia

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB
Read every single entry before you post again on this subject.

Originally Posted by thewelcomewagon

lol you want me to read all this. j/w before i start reading, what will i learn from reading these things.

Originally Posted by NiceGuy

The answers to your stupid f.cking questions.

Originally Posted by death_bringer

Originally Posted by death_bringer

Why Try, why are you being some immature moron?

Originally Posted by WhY TrY

They aren't stupid, just ignorant. It's obvious he's been sheltered, so give him a break.

Originally Posted by NiceGuy

Sounds stupid to me.

You can't be sheltered from evidence that's not being hidden from you. Evidence about evolution isn't hiding under a rock.

Originally Posted by Morfin

Originally Posted by NoGuff (The Universal Answer To Anyone Who Doesn't Hate Muslims)

Originally Posted by General AI

Well (in terms of fossils), technically...

Originally Posted by thewelcomewagon

This may be a change in the subject but I have some questions.

I do believe in micro-evolution and natural selection obviously because they have been proven. I may not know every detail about evolution but I want to try to understand.

I do not believe in macroevolution and the common ancestor part of evolution. To me there is no proof good enough for me to believe it (maybe like atheists or agnostics with Christianity or any other religion) there is no fossil proof that I've heard or seen of but if there is please correct me. And my biology teacher said that we don’t see evolution because it happened so slowly but how come we don’t have fossils of species when they are evolving into others like fish into snakes, she said that we don’t have those fossils because the process happens to fast and fossils are hard to come by.

Originally Posted by TooMuchButtHair

Micro and macro are terms coined by creationists to throw people off. If you believe in one, you by default believe in the other. They operate by the exact same mechanism. Using creationist terminology, macro evolution is just a few micro evolutions within a single species (I know, using creationist terminology really dumbs down the explanation). Using the terms micro and macro make me believe you've been lied to about evolution, and the evidence that supports it.



There are millions. Literally, there are millions.



Your teacher lied to you, or are extremely ignorant.