@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.

No problem tho

It's gradual changes over time

Thats why i said its not observable

Its a belief

You have to believe in evolution

We can observe the small, gradual changes with ease. Human research simply hasn't been around long enough to observe macroevolution. That's why fossils are the best way to observe it happen over millions of years

So again. Not observable

That's the opposite of what I said

It is totally observable

Unless you believe that fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us, or by scientists to sell more Jurassic Park merchandise

It helps to think about exactly how long life as existed, too. >3 billion years is a lot of time for gradual changes to amount to something bigger. If a moth can change colour in the spam of a few years or even months, then think about what could happen over millions of years

Thats fine if you want to believe in chicken bones

I don't see how chicken bones have anything to do with it

What do you mean by that?

I dont think the bones show anything remotely close to observable proof of evolution

Not even bones

Microevolution - variation within a kind. Macroevolution - one kind turning into another kind.

I don't know if I can post pictures in here but I'll just explain in words for now

First, take the most basal genus if archosauria (the grouping of all birds, dinosaurs, and crocodiles). Then, take a trip down the evolutionaey tree to the next archosaurs that appeared in the fossil record. Eventually, you'll get to a point where you start to see differences in archosaurs as a whole. Their main features are altered so that crocodilians, pterosaurs, and dinosaurs emerge. (Pterosaurs have fragile bones and don't fossilize well, so let's just look at dinos and crocs).

The first dinosaurs and the first crocodilians share many similarities, although it is obvious that they are different species. That is due to two group of archosaurs adapting for two different lifestyles. Their physical attributes reflect their proficiencies in hunting, campuflage, or survival as a whole.

Now, let's look just as dinosaurs. The earliest dinosaurs were simple, many lacked the features you'd think of when someone says "dinosaur" (i.e. horns, huge jaws, long necks, etc). But as dinosaurs outcompeted crocodilians and other creatures left over from the Permian-Triassic extinction, they needed to diversify in order to keep surviving. Some became herbivores, some became carnivores. The herbivores evolved longer necks and a larger body, for reaching more vegetation and defending themselves respectively. The carnivores became swifter and smaller, with genera such as ceolophysis become common. Keep in mind that millions of years have passed since the crocodilians and dinosaurs diverged, and as such, millions of lifespans.