Can you not believe both

I do not see the two being mutually exclusive

Sure if you want

God big gay

@paul785#0527 plz do not troll this chat

Can I see proof of macroevolution? I don't find fossil evidence convincing due to the fact we can't know for sure whether said fossil had viable offspring and therefore determine whether they truly are a transitional fossil or just a fossil of an extinct species.

I'm not here to debate, just to learn.

There isn’t any proof of macroevolution.

yes Derek, there is in fact evidence

@Derek Nelson

Mr Nelson, have you ever heard of convergent and divergent evolution?

@Derek Nelson

or the Galapagos island finches, which is living evidence if fossils are not sufficient

https://thinkdivinely.com/evolutions-fatal-flaw-lack-of-fossil-evidence/

Dear Derek, this is the opinion of the author of the article, I would like the source of the "Darwin himself said"

this is also sourced from one website

meaning this website may be biased

while multiple websites and PHDs support the idea of evolution

evolution is low iq hypotesis

I honestly don’t care what Darwin said. His beliefs even according to any fossil record aren’t physically possible, because they don’t physically exist.

paleontology is a pseudoscience.

you can't follow the scientific method

**facts**

evolution is fake. made up

@Stacey's mom Parts of the theory of evolution is true, but most is false.

uvu

Still waiting for any observable evidence for darwinian evolution.

Maybe show just one example of a change of kind.

@Citizen Z They will say microevolution (variation within a kind) is macroevolution (kind changing into another kind)

Which means not observable

Its a belief

Yup

They will then say that the fossil record is evidence.

Despite the fact we can't tell whether said fossils ever reproduced successfully with viable offspring.

@Citizen Z here's a good example of evolution by natural selection http://www.sci-news.com/biology/industrial-melanism-06329.html

If that's what you were looking for

@Regular Waterfowl what kind did it change

I mean what was the previous kind

What was it before

@Secrette the fossil record is very good evidence of evolution.
>Despite the fact we can't tell whether said fossils ever reproduced successfully with viable offspring

That just shows that you obviously don't know jack about fossils. Considering that the fossils that most prominently support evolution, such as the famous archaeopteryx fossil and many transitional "missing link" amphibians such as Tiktaalik were even FOUND at all, we can assume that there were plenty of living specimens of Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, as the sheer probability of the single member of a species being fossilized at all is near impossible due to how rarely skeletons are even fossilized. That, and the fact that there are MULTIPLE fossils of both Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik disproves the claim that we don't know whether they reproduced with viable offspring.