newpolitics
vegan atheist indy
- Sep 27, 2008
- 2,931
- 262
- 48
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Just like Charles Darwin, the modern-day evolution scientific community asserts that every single animal that has ever existed came from one common ancestor aka came from a single animal (macro-evolution). Is there evidence proving that humans or animals evolved from completely different beings than what they presently are?
2. Fossils are the bones of long-dead animals. Do fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal (eg. a whale evolving into a bear)--which is an example of macro-evolution?
3. When people in the pro-evolution scientific community speak about animals evolving into "new species," are they referring to one family of animal evolving into an entirely different family of animal (eg. a squirrel evolving into a bat or a dinosaur evolving into a bird)--which are examples of macro-evolution? Or are they referring to variations of the exact same type of animal (eg. Doberman dog, Bull dog, Rottweiler dog)--which is an example of micro-evolution?
I have shown you to be arguing a misconception of evolution, as evidenced by your insistence that a whale would EVER evolve directly into a bear. This is a patently false notion since we know that whales evolved from land mammals back into ocean creatures, which is why they breath air, and not water. As such, your argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms you pretend to define, and I need no further refutation. No sources, no evidence. Your "argument" (if you'd call it that) does not stand on its own: it is structurally invalid, because you are equivocating on definitions. That is all I have to show. Further, all you really did was post a bunch of definitions, and then ask three malformed questions, as if your questions were conclusions that necessarily followed from the definitions. You have not shown how these follow necessarily, so any assertions you make are unsubstantiated and require no direct refutation, because the underlying structure of your argument is invalid.