:
|
I'm not trying to be insulting, but with a condescending attitute like that your conversion rate isn't going to be very high.
|
Yeah, my ego is famous at school. It goes in a cycle which I am very aware of. Sometimes I am a really nice guy, other times I am an egotistical jerk. I'll try really hard to cut it out since you are the third person this week to point it out to me. So sorry Pinky, that was unfair since I only know you by reputation.
:
|
A species is defined as two or more individuals of a group who can produce fertile offspring. These two birds can't reproduce - would that suggest two different species? So there you have it, a modern day example of evolution.
|
Can't mate or won't mate? Lions and tigers are two very different species. They live in different areas, look different and have different behaviors. But people have artificially breed lions and tigers together. Their offspring, ligers, are not always infertile. Many ligers can still mate with both lions and tigers, or even other ligers. But does this make lions and tigers the same species. According to the current definition of the word species they apparently are, since they can successfully reproduce.
:
|
Are you kidding? Bacteria is known to be horrendously mutative. It's well known that treating someone with antibiotics for a bacterial infection causes the bacteria to mutate.
|
Bacterial adaptation does not prove evolution. The bacteria is still the same type of bacteria. The only difference is that now they can resist a certain type of antibiotic. Macroevolution involves change across phylogenetic walls. This is not the case in bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Also, bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics can live easier in that antibiotic, but that doesn't mean that the organism as a whole is a better organism. Most bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics have a slower metabolism and are less virulent anyway.
:
|
Unless by 'major evolution' you mean giant, fire breathing blobs that destroy cities, in which case I'd respond with: "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change."
|
No I don't mean that. I'm not a total idiot. And your response is scientifically inaccurate. Mutations occure randomly. Ask any evolutionist scientist and they would tell you that species do not evolve from need. It is a random process with no specific goal. If a mutation is beneficial to a new environment, it will stay, and if it isn't it will probably not. But mutations do not occur just because there is a greater need to survive, they are random occurances, very rare and usually detrimental to an organism.
At least you never claimed to have studied evolution to a great extent. At least if you are wrong you have an excuse... I stupidly didn't give myself that option.