David Palmer. I find it a bit strange that you are able to accept evolution only at the micro level. Surely there is a contradiction there which needs some explanation. I would refer you again to the primate family tree at http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics. This seems to have been substantially verified by the recorded fossil finds.

David

i allow my bias to support your bias
sorry..im all talked out re the debait

the conspiricy is too well supported
by those needing tax free govt grants

darn just as i was walking away..i read this challange

VK3AUU quote..""David Palmer.I find it a bit strange that you are able to accept evolution only at the micro level. Surely there is a contradiction there which needs some explanation.""

let me jump in here

at the micro level...[withing the genus mutation]
we get all dogs..evolving within the canus genus

same re catus genus
same re darwins finches
[in dry times the thick beaked surivive/breed better
in wety seasons the thin beaked thrive
they didnt evolve into another
they both float axccording to which are best 'designed'..for the relitive weather conditions

full stop

mate show me the first life..!
then name what it evolved into

was the first life a virus..
or a bacteria..or a worm or a mollasc?

""I would refer you..to the primate family tree at""

ok im there
lol...mate there is a great difference
between chimps..and bonobo-s..

then man

funny how they dont explain the missing link

anyhow ol mate get me the base of the tree
ie NAME THE FIRST LIFE

name what it ..'evolved'..into
give dna proof

""This seems to have been substantially verified
by the recorded fossil finds.""

lol

mate just think
if i collected all the rocks in the land
and sorted..them by shape/volour and hardness

i could make a graph..like your link
and say these small white rocks..evolved into them big black ones

but it would still be a lie..[or a 'theory]..lol

and evolution is a theory..!

even darwin wrote evolution of species
not evolution of genus

its genus evolving into new genus
that evolution HYPOTHESIS..[theorises about]

no science method can do..an evolution
[macro..ie evolve a new genus]

trillions of mutated fruiitflies
have mutated ONLY fruitflies

get it?

one under god,

"get it?"

No. I haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to argue. Might I suggest that you brush up on your literacy skills?

Poirot,

That article made me hungry.

OUG, how about you share with us your hypothesis and evidence for evolution/creation etc? Does this exist or do you just have faith? Remember, explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, thus not acceptable.

I thought about providing you with a whole bunch of scientific papers disproving your various theories (rants), but I think this pretty much sums up your argument.

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851/Futurama_-_Evolution_Debate_

The polite Acolyte Rizla
i replied to micro evolution
the only evolution there is...[small mutations remember?]

thing is the difference between species..[as defined by genus evolution...;macro 'evolution]

your silpistic comprehention;..of evolution..requires macro evolution out of species..then a breeding mate to replicate the 'evolution'..into a new genus..

this has never been confirmed..not in science nor 'nature'
the fossil record is full of gaps...

most the 'proof'..is less than bone fragments
but mate google up the 'tree of life'..a project now abandoned..cause there was no proof of dna evolving into new genus

find the tre of life
look at the roots..of..the first life
there is no definitive 'first'..that all life could evolve from

but your clever enough to know this
or too ignorant..to try to explain it

either way

name names
or go away

all you can do is spell
so what..you dont got a logical thought in your post
so there clearly is a huge gap in your science..

al you got is faith
not science
not fact

if you got fact..present fact
if you got fact present it