Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasczak  What you call "biological evolution" doesn't involve change?
You're lumping natural selection with speciation, but the problem is natural selection is universally accepted, while speciation isn't.
To your first assertion, that's hardly true. It may have seemed to have been to some before the electron microscope, but now there's the problem of irreduceable complexity. The most basic single cell living organism requires 250 protein chains. That's like pulling the lever on 250 slot machines in a row and winning the jackpot on each. Where did that first single cell organism come from - how did it come to life?
BTW, you don't seem to understand what "equivocate" means. I'm not the one being ambiguous, I'm asking for clearly defined terms. It's usually the darwinism adherents doing the equivocating in order to pull of the bait and switch. |
Don't start this. I'm talking about
scientific evolution as in evolution
within the field of science. I'm not debating the merits of said science I'm just clarify your confusion several posts ago as to what the study meant. The study is talking about the science of evolution, nothing else, not microevolution, not "change," but evolution as science understands it.