Message from @Citizen Z
Discord ID: 668054170221412372
There isn’t any proof of macroevolution.
yes Derek, there is in fact evidence
Mr Nelson, have you ever heard of convergent and divergent evolution?
or the Galapagos island finches, which is living evidence if fossils are not sufficient
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.
@Citizen Z the light-coloured moth changed into the dark-coloured
The light-coloured couldn't survive when the lichen they camouflaged against died, so only the darker ones were camouflaged against the tree bark and they became the majority of the species.
Thats not changing kind
Nice try tho
That's what happens with all natural selection; say, when the last ice age ended, the animals that had adapted well to colder climates such as mammoths and wooly rhinos either died out or lost their hair to cope with warmer weather
Of course, human hunting had some to do with it, but the point still stands
Thats also not changing kind
The point of evolution isn't to have quick, drastic changes.