Calypsis4 writes:
Let me illustrate just how strong my position is by pretending to be you and using this illustration:
"Hey Calypsis4, I am going to PROVE to you that the Chevrolet evolved over the years from lower forms to higher ones. Ready?
My first example. A 57 Chevy from the distant past. An actual 1957 Chevy (in 1957):
Now here is the 'proof' that it evolved:
: picture :
And then this:
: picture :
And then this:
: picture :
Now, Calypsis4, these are my 'living fossils'. Do you see the many differences? Don't you see that this is 'proof' that the Chevy evolved?"
For the sake of intellectual honesty, would you please stop using cars (or any inanimate object) for your strawman argument?
Cars do not reproduce, have genetic material to randomly mutate, or do anything in responce to their enviroment or ability to survive. Thus, cars cannot evolve.
Regardless, I believe I got your point.
I think theres a misunderstanding going on here. Are you under the assumption that according to evolutionary biology, once a species evolves, it nessessarily must be noticably morpho-logically different from its parent species? Or that once a species has evolved, it can no longer be catogorized with its predesesing species line?
(Example: ape -> man-like-ape -> man;
..Therefore man is not an ape?)
Im interested to hear your views.
™ Version 4.2
