Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

Ok. This is a part of Darwins theory of slow, adaptive evolution yes?What do you say about the newer theory ofpunctuated equilibrium?Im sure i dont need to explain it to you but just to check that i have the right idea, its the sudden jump into new species rather then the very slow process of adaptive evolution. And it believe those who support it use the fossil record as a basis for their theory??? can I ask what you consider to be the 'specific mutations' that spread thru a population? What sort of mutation are you talking about here?

ok, well dont imitate his bad example then loli know the tendency is to bite back and sometimes i do this myself, (apologies to granny magda) but that only adds to the problem and it doesnt make for good discussions.

right
so no new species evolved...they were still finches. this is just moving the goalposts. What really was happening to the finches is that they were adapting to change. Like animals who loose their winter coat in summer.But if you want to call it evolution, then call it evolution. I believe it whole heartedly. I take it that this is how the ToE has changed greatly over the years.
You've separated 'descent from a common ancestor' and the 'ToE' as if they are two different things.in a few words, please explain the difference between:'common descent''the theory of evolution'

there are just as many creationists who to the same to them. We do not believe in the very thing they spend their lives researching and working at...you cant blame them for accusing us of being wacky, brainwashed, religous zealots.But they dont 'all' act this way and some of them are very reasonable and provide some good information. Now while i'll never subscribe to evolution, and they'll never subscribe to creation, the purpose of debate is just that...its for both sides to present the reasons for their position. It doesnt mean that anyone wins the debate...that would only happen if I became an evolutionist convert, or one of them became a creationist convert. i know and thats the frusting thing...but just remember, they are right and so are you. In terms of what evolution is and what has been written about it, they are right when they tell you about it. But it doesnt mean the 'ToE' is the truth.You need a thick skin if you are going to put your ideas on the table because there will always be someone who will tell you your idea is wrong. You have to expect that. And you are doing exactly the same thing to them anyway. You are telling them their idea is wrong, so why should you expect them to accept that? of course, its ok to bite back so long as you dont throw personal attacks around...remember, its not the person you are biting, its their idea....i can say this from experience because my husband is an evolutionist...if i attacked him, we wouldnt survive for very long. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

a wager on what? on me turning to the dark side???

Ok, so right here is where we see that the original theory of evolution - Descent with modification leading to all the millions of forms of life - has changed toinheritable change in the gene poolOf course im not opposed to this idea. I've had 3 children and they all appear slightly different....isnt that inheritable change in the gene pool. Their genes will be very close to mine, but not quite because my reproduction has created something different to me...the same, but different. Ahhh that is a revelation. Never heard it put that way before. i see the difference now and appreciate that you went all lay person onme.It is definately the common descent thing that creationists are opposed to. I dont have a problem with the 'changes in gene pool' because we can see that clearly and it works.But in this area of linking all life forms with a long line of descent, we just cant see it...the fossil record doesnt show it, it shows fully formed life springing out in abundance at the same time.So yes, i think i get it...damn, i'll have nothing to debate over! Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

yes, and especially considering just how many humans there are on earth. In terms of numbers, we outnumber almost all other animals on the planet...except for maybe insects. So there is plenty of opportunity for it to happen, so Why it hasnt happened is a very important question. yes exactly... and if evolutionists really believe that the Australian Aboriginals are 40,000 years old, then they were isolated for all that time and yet they were able to reproduce offspring with europeans only a few hundred years ago.So if 40,000 years is not enough time for an isolated human population to 'speciate' then perhaps they need to re think what sepciation actually is and how it works.Perhaps humans and animals are different in this respect?

one very crucial point in the golapogas finch study...one that was not promoted too loudly....was that the different species of finches could still breed and produce offspring that survived better than the parents.That kind of creates more questions with regard to 'speciation' and whether the finchs actually became a 'new' species.There is no interbreeding amonst different species of animals. Horses dont breed with cows, dogs dont breed with cats...so when they say the finches 'speciated' they obviously did not become a completely new species of finch...otherwise how could they reproduce???

yes, i guess it was a broad statement to make...the point I was trying to highlight was the on a debate forum, its not likely to happen because neither side is here to learn about the other side. In relality we are here because we have already chosen which side we believe in.

Yes, it is true.it was Peter and Rosemary Grant who studied the galapogas finches in the 70's and they documented how the drought was the contributor to the change in beak sizes. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches and if you did a bit of digging into their research, you'd find that some of the different species of finches were capable of interbreeding and producing offspring. the article by Peter Grant and a graduate student Lisle Gibbs appeared in the science journal 'Natur' in 1987. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Non-summation hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.