What i can't understand about evolution....

Great Post!

Unless you find a good definition for kind, your whole point about microevolution versus macrevolution goes down the drain, which is just as well since that distinction is completely artificial and meaningess to begin with.Human beings are more closely related to chimps then cats are to lions. Would you put humans and chimps in the same kind?

I'll give you one evidence from genetics. Different life forms do share many genes. Those genes are not exactly identical though. There are some variation from species to species. Most of this variation seam to have little physiological consequence (They are neutral variations, not benefical or detrimental). Now comes the interesting part. Species believed to be closely related like humans and chimps happen to have more similar forms of a given gene then species believed to be less closely related like mice and cows. that is genetic (therefore biological) evidence for the theory of evolution.Edited by fallacycop, : fix typo

That makes no sense. The acceptance of any evidence by any of the parties of a debate makes that evidence more relevant. You sure don't mean to say that. you're confused. I pointed out that there is genetic evidence. would you care to respond?

You may have to spell out what kind of evidence you are looking for. Please do that without using the word kind or, (even better) define the word kind in a consistent way and then go ahead and use it.

I think you are wrong about that. There are many cities around the world that do not carry their original pronounciation into english. I cannot see any reason why Beijin could not be one of them. Quick question: how do you pronounce 'Rio de Janeiro'?

Is it then incorrect to pronunce the 's' at the end of the word Paris when speak english? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure about what you mean by 'higher primtes'. Assuming you mean apes, then you are telling me that creationists accept the biological evidence that chimps and gorillas have a common ancestor but deny that humans also share a common ancestor with them. How do you explain then that chimps are genetically more similar to humans then they are to gorillas?

That's not true. There are plenty of examples where mutations have been shown to take place and be benefical as well.I notice that you have at first asked for biological evidence for evolution, but once that evidence was given to you, you did not give any responce to that evidence. Instead, you are starting an entirely different line of attack. you are claiming that mutations could not have lead to evolution beyond your undefined 'kinds'. I think that is really bad form. I want to know what you think about the evidence that was given to you before moving the goalpost. Edited by fallacycop, : typo

Can you name all your great-great-great-great-great-granparents? If not, does that mean they did not exist?Since we are going to make things up, I'll make up a little pet name for you. I'll call you Slightly-Amusing-and-Deluded or SAD. What say you?Edited by fallacycop, : typo

Hi SAD (sorry for the typo in my last message. I did not mean to call you MAD). Since the human evolution was a slow gradual process, Your question makes no sense. Can you tell me how many transitional forms you have had since you were a baby? Hint: my question makes as much sense as yours

Those are artificial subdivisions. I want to know the real transitional forms. The evidence is overwhelming

That question didn't make any sense before. It still makes no sense. You are asking us to count the number of transitionals of a gradual process. It makes no sense.

So, do you accept that your question makes no sense?Edited by fallacycop, : typo

A movie is nothing more then sequence of stills at the rate of 2 or 3 dozen stills per second. that would only open billions of missing links. You would only make things worse that way.