Evolution, what's your take on it?

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If something can change minutely within a few generations, what is stopping it from changing entirely over a million? If the basic code that 'restricts' animals from 'changing from what they are' changes slightly within each generation, then the basic code itself has changed entirely within the next few generations and thus isn't the same code that you started with. So what do you define as this limit that magically stops animals evolving? Because if they can 'vary' within species like you say, what is stopping them from those varied species from varying any further?Revinh

Because the change that happens or the variation is not a progression toward becoming something else.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

yoshi-lnex

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still the same kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

yoshi-lnex

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

I think you mean "species" not "kind"Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If something can change minutely within a few generations, what is stopping it from changing entirely over a million? If the basic code that 'restricts' animals from 'changing from what they are' changes slightly within each generation, then the basic code itself has changed entirely within the next few generations and thus isn't the same code that you started with. So what do you define as this limit that magically stops animals evolving? Because if they can 'vary' within species like you say, what is stopping them from those varied species from varying any further?yoshi-lnex

Because the change that happens or the variation is not a progression toward becoming something else.

Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If something can change minutely within a few generations, what is stopping it from changing entirely over a million? If the basic code that 'restricts' animals from 'changing from what they are' changes slightly within each generation, then the basic code itself has changed entirely within the next few generations and thus isn't the same code that you started with. So what do you define as this limit that magically stops animals evolving? Because if they can 'vary' within species like you say, what is stopping them from those varied species from varying any further?Revinh

Because the change that happens or the variation is not a progression toward becoming something else.

Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"]If something can change minutely within a few generations, what is stopping it from changing entirely over a million? If the basic code that 'restricts' animals from 'changing from what they are' changes slightly within each generation, then the basic code itself has changed entirely within the next few generations and thus isn't the same code that you started with. So what do you define as this limit that magically stops animals evolving? Because if they can 'vary' within species like you say, what is stopping them from those varied species from varying any further?Revinh

Because the change that happens or the variation is not a progression toward becoming something else.

Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

You still seem to have misconceptions about how evolution works. It doesn't occur in huge leaps i.e. one species does not give birth to another, it involves small vatiations from one generation to the next which can create a distinct species over many generations.

I suggest you read up on it.

What's an evolution?

Is it similiar to an emolution?MissRiotmaker

No, evolution as in ebullution.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

notconspiracy

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

yoshi-lnex

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

You still seem to have misconceptions about how evolution works. It doesn't occur in huge leaps i.e. one species does not give birth to another, it involves small vatiations from one generation to the next which can create a distinct species over many generations.

I suggest you read up on it.

I believe that evolution is right.

*High-fives evolution*

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

yoshi-lnex

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

You still seem to have misconceptions about how evolution works. It doesn't occur in huge leaps i.e. one species does not give birth to another, it involves small vatiations from one generation to the next which can create a distinct species over many generations.

I suggest you read up on it.

Your right, kind is an actual fact. I know how evolution works. Through millions of years through random mutation we develop as a species. But through variation we don't evolve, we just become different from out ancestors, of the same kind.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

second, a dog will always give birth to a dog because all ancestors of that species will be in the canine taxa.

"kind" isn't a biological term, "species" is, I'd prefer that you use the actual term.

You still seem to have misconceptions about how evolution works. It doesn't occur in huge leaps i.e. one species does not give birth to another, it involves small vatiations from one generation to the next which can create a distinct species over many generations.

I suggest you read up on it.

yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

You still seem to have misconceptions about how evolution works. It doesn't occur in huge leaps i.e. one species does not give birth to another, it involves small vatiations from one generation to the next which can create a distinct species over many generations.

I suggest you read up on it.

Your right, kind is an actual fact. I know how evolution works. Through millions of years through random mutation we develop as a species. But through variation we don't evolve, just become different from out ancestors, of the same kind.

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

123625

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

notconspiracy

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

second, a dog will always give birth to a dog because all ancestors of that species will be in the canine taxa.

But it doesnt change kind... its still a dog. Whats your point?

And if you don't understand the word kind go read a dictionary, you don't need science to observe kinds and know they are the same.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.notconspiracy

well it wont because everything that is descended from a human will always be in the Human taxa.

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

second, a dog will always give birth to a dog because all ancestors of that species will be in the canine taxa.

But it doesnt change kind... its still a dog. Whats your point?

And if you don't understand the word kind go read a dictionary, you don't need science to observe kinds and know they are the same.

it is a kingdom?

is it a phylum?

is it a class?

is it an order?

Is it a family?

Is it a genus?

is it a species?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.Revinh

well it wont because everything that is descended from a human will always be in the Human taxa.

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.Revinh

well it wont because everything that is descended from a human will always be in the Human taxa.

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.Revinh

well it wont because everything that is descended from a human will always be in the Human taxa.

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

notconspiracy

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

second, a dog will always give birth to a dog because all ancestors of that species will be in the canine taxa.

But it doesnt change kind... its still a dog. Whats your point?

And if you don't understand the word kind go read a dictionary, you don't need science to observe kinds and know they are the same.

it is a kingdom?

is it a phylum?

is it a class?

is it an order?

Is it a family?

Is it a genus?

is it a species?

Doesnt need to be scientific to be real though...

Eleven freakin' quote boxes... do you need that to know where your conversation left off? >_>

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.yoshi-lnex

actually no.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

Out of curiosity/clarification, what do you believe 123625?

Just so I can understand your stance about evolution.

123625

Okay i shall make this my last post.

I beleive in kinds. Cats, dogs, horses, birds and etc.

Now i beleive variation can occur within these kinds and it is welll observed, i have no trouble with that.

What i don't beleive is that one kind can change into another, and this has never been observed. Nor is there enough fossils to prove it.

I beleive a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog.

First of all, animal species becoming other species has been observed in the fossil record, that is a fact. If you wish, I can show you examples, just ask.

Your statement "I believe a cat gives birth to cat, and dog gives birth to a dog" suggests that you don't understand the basis of how evolution works, so here's an explanation again;

Species adapt to their environment based upon what genes are more favorable, for example in cold weather, large amounts of body fat and hair are favored over less, and thus a species with better genes allowing for these traits is more likely to survive and pass on it's genes, while genes that the environment do not favor are likely to become increasingly scarce and eventually disappear. Over time, these small changes can warent being a species being described by an entirely different name. It has become another species. That's how evolution works in a nutshell.

But its still kind, its not a different one. Small changes over time will change the appearence but it's still the same kind. I agree with Micro which is variation and adaption. Not macro, they don't become a new kind.

You may not beleive in Kinds but i do.

Large changes over time do produce different species, it's been observed in the fossil record.

Enough minor changes from generation to generation, and over thousands of years, the species will have an entirely different look. Simple examples being chimps and humans. We have a common ancestor, but over millions of years, there have been so many minor variations, that we are entirely different species.

and "macro evolution" isn't a term used by biologists

No i mean "kind" Kind meaning a dog will always give birth to a dog, even if it looks different its still a dog. it didn't evolve into a cat (Just using that as an example not saying its evolution)

No the fossil record is just interpretation of evidence. I can look at it and say, so what?

I beleive in Micro, small changes over time and yes it will become another type of dog or cat, but its still the same kind.

and yes, the fossil record CLEARLY supports evolution

I shouldnt need to define kind, since it is so basic and simple a three year old should know.

But i shall do so anyway.

A dog gives birth to a dog, it may be different(say bigger with green hair). But it doesnt change the kind. You may not beleive in it, but i do. And Kind is a fact actually, as we see it all the time.

second, a dog will always give birth to a dog because all ancestors of that species will be in the canine taxa.

But it doesnt change kind... its still a dog. Whats your point?

And if you don't understand the word kind go read a dictionary, you don't need science to observe kinds and know they are the same.

it is a kingdom?

is it a phylum?

is it a class?

is it an order?

Is it a family?

Is it a genus?

is it a species?

Doesnt need to be scientific to be real though...

How else can my charmander turn into Charizard!?!?!?hockeyboy222

Charizard is freakin awsome.

[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"]What's an evolution?

Is it similiar to an emolution?Revinh

No, evolution as in ebullution.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Um, no, We were talking about slight modification with descent. The child don't always look exactly the same as their parent. The slight changes such as a different eye color, type of hair, complexion, are NOT a progression toward becoming something else. No matter how much these changes happens it doesn't change a human from being human.PannicAtack

well it wont because everything that is descended from a human will always be in the Human taxa.

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:

What did I misinterpret? Isn't that the ridiculous theory of evolution?

And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:Revinh

I wonder if in a few decades people will be immune to the effects of alcohol due to the amount it's used today? I mean, with evolution, we would adapt to it wouldnt we?

I wonder if in a few decades people will be immune to the effects of alcohol due to the amount it's used today?

lobodob

Doesnt need to be scientific to be real though...

notconspiracy

So if kind is not used by science, it isnt true?

[QUOTE="lobodob"]

I wonder if in a few decades people will be immune to the effects of alcohol due to the amount it's used today?

notconspiracy

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"]What's an evolution?

Is it similiar to an emolution?CptJSparrow

No, evolution as in ebullution.

What?

So if kind is not used by science it isnt true?

123625

[QUOTE="Revinh"]And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:foxhound_fox

no. it isn't true for the simple reason that it is subjective and has no definitionnotconspiracy

Whatever, i guess we are just all the same animal only different then.

But hey if you can't see the similarities between kinds its your problem.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:foxhound_fox

Weak. resemblance =/= common ancestor

Your imagination supports it.

[QUOTE="123625"]

So if kind is not used by science it isnt true?

notconspiracy

Bingo.

Whatever, i guess we are jsut all the same animal only different then.

123625

Whatever, i guess we are jsut all the same animal only different then.

123625

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Revinh"]And yet a fish has become amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, apes to man? :roll:Revinh

Weak. resemblance =/= common ancestor

Your imagination supports it.

[QUOTE="123625"]

Whatever, i guess we are jsut all the same animal only different then.

notconspiracy

If we're not seperated by kinds we're all the same animal only different. Since kinds don't exist as you say, we're just all the same, just different.