"Indeed evolution does occur, but I don't think the theory of evolution (change of one species to another) has occured."

Why not? You have to understand that the word "species" is vague, and is just a mental aid for the most part. What came first, the chicken or the egg? It depends on where you draw the line between "chicken" and "pre-chicken." There was no point when chickens suddenly started hatching from the eggs of reptiles. It's a gradual process. The current generation of chickens is more chicken-like than any previous generation. It's like asking where red blends into blue on the electromagnetic spectrum. You can't draw a definite line, but no one would deny that red and blue are different colors. For example, humans and chimps share something like 98% of the same DNA. It follows that we evolved from a common ancestor.

If species don't change into others throughout time, where do they come from? Is there a flash of divine light, and BINGO! We have a chicken.

I've got to go now, but I'll write about the length-of-day thing later tonight, or maybe tomorrow.

• There is not evidence and has never been evidence of Darwins.... - motumos - July 4, 2001 - 17:50 UTC
  • I can name and show you evidence of colors in between other colo - motumos - July 4, 2001 - 18:18 UTC
    • The fossile record is one thing - highvoltage - July 5, 2001 - 06:17 UTC
      • I have studied both Anthropology, and biology, and non exist. - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 13:53 UTC
        • Archeaopteryx and Archaeornyx - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 18:40 UTC
    • It's common sense - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 13:53 UTC
      • Listen to yourslef man..??!!?? - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 15:42 UTC
        • If you were indeed studying biology, you knew - alexander - July 5, 2001 - 17:24 UTC
          • A wolf is the same species as a dog. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:52 UTC
            • No, I did NOT study biology in depth. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 17:36 UTC
              • But the same question is applied, Atheists don't prove a thing.. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:00 UTC
            • Biology Help - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 17:48 UTC
          • Also, you seem to be describing adaptation, not evolution. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:56 UTC
            • Hair and nails are one thing, appendix and coccyx are another - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 02:11 UTC
        • I think you're a little misguided - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 18:32 UTC
          • Humans are the only species with mitochondrial DNA and - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:37 UTC
            • I'll clarify a little - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 01:56 UTC
              • But you see, It hasn't ever been proven. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:56 UTC
              • Also, what followed a different path? - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:59 UTC
                • Boy, is this dark ages discussion or what? - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 19:03 UTC
              • Problem with your analogy - isaiaha41 - July 7, 2001 - 13:32 UTC
                • I will admit that evolution seems to have driving force - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:49 UTC
                  • Darwins Theory of evolution is also jumping to conclusions storm - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:21 UTC
                  • Two sides to that coin - isaiaha41 - July 8, 2001 - 13:52 UTC
                    • I agree - stormcrow - July 8, 2001 - 23:26 UTC
                      • No god(s), Santa(s), etc. beings are needed. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:44 UTC
                        • It's just a suspicion - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 19:54 UTC
                          • Mario, my post is not for you. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 20:19 UTC
                            • Okay (nt) - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 20:36 UTC
          • Yeah, God did it. - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 18:59 UTC
            • Yasir, please use word "math" instead of "god" . - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 19:29 UTC
              • I really love it - iamnotagenius - July 6, 2001 - 19:42 UTC
              • But that doesn't prove evolution, only adaptation.... AGAIN!! - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:08 UTC
                • What's the difference between adaptation and evolution? - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 00:07 UTC
  • Read my post again - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 13:50 UTC
    • Thats not what you said, and you know it. - motumos - July 5, 2001 - 15:26 UTC
      • Evolution is false? What century are you from? - alexander - July 5, 2001 - 17:47 UTC
        • Not species changing - highvoltage - July 5, 2001 - 18:09 UTC
          • Yeah, it is - stormcrow - July 5, 2001 - 18:22 UTC
            • Species (DNA) change constantly. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 00:19 UTC
            • you describe adaptation once again, confusing with evolution.WOW - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 02:11 UTC
              • As I understand it, evolution is a result of adaptation - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 02:30 UTC
                • Adaptaion is different then Evolution. Darwin made it confusing. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 04:07 UTC
                  • Adaptation LEADS to evolution - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 04:21 UTC
                    • No it doesn't, - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:10 UTC
                      • Species?? - doctordick - July 6, 2001 - 14:17 UTC
                        • The conclusion is clear: Darvin is right. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 21:16 UTC
                          • Current DNA changes have not proven Darwin right, more like Wron - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:13 UTC
                            • So, where do all species come from then, Motumos? - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:58 UTC
                          • Thank you for that - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 01:57 UTC
        • Alexander wrong again. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 02:02 UTC
          • Are you blind to facts or just plain ignorant? - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 20:54 UTC
            • Clarification - harvey1 - July 6, 2001 - 22:55 UTC
            • You need to study more. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:24 UTC
              • oh, and about humans history... - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 23:31 UTC
                • That was a desperate response - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 02:28 UTC
                  • not very wrong from the truth. - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 04:13 UTC
                    • I don't know about that - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:30 UTC
                      • Elements are exposed to many elements and radiation. - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:42 UTC
                        • Bible is incorrect again. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 21:29 UTC
                          • Apparently you haven't read the bible carefully! - highvoltage - July 10, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
                            • What about the Orthodox Jews - yanniru - July 10, 2001 - 17:00 UTC
                              • Please explain - highvoltage - July 11, 2001 - 04:44 UTC
                                • From the Torah - yanniru - July 11, 2001 - 12:09 UTC
                                  • Sources? - highvoltage - July 12, 2001 - 04:49 UTC
                                    • You have to speak with an Orthadox Jew - yanniru - July 12, 2001 - 21:37 UTC
                      • carbon-dating not accurate more than several thous yrs back - isaiaha41 - July 8, 2001 - 19:06 UTC
                        • How can carbon sample be contaminated? - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 17:49 UTC
                          • Soot - doctordick - July 12, 2001 - 23:32 UTC
              • Dammit, adaptation LEADS to evolution - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 02:24 UTC
                • Here's a contradiction you athiets even try to use as proof of E - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 04:04 UTC
                  • How do you figure? - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:26 UTC
                    • Not exactly. - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:54 UTC
                      • What? - harvey1 - July 9, 2001 - 18:11 UTC
                  • This is not a theist/atheist controversy - harvey1 - July 9, 2001 - 18:07 UTC