When will creationists accept that macro-evolution has been observed?

And that it means organisms that could once interbreed being no longer capable of doing so because they are no longer interfertile.

It has nothing to do with one organsims evolving into a different "kind" of organism?


0|0
0|2

Most Helpful Guy

  • Some bacteria become immune to antibiotics too, tis evolution. Creationists are stupid. Nuff said.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 0

No girls shared opinions.

What Guys Said 1

  • We will look at evolution as a possibility when you evolutionists find a solid explication as to how things originated instead of changing theories every time a new piece of evidence comes up that supports creation. Here's a question for you. When will evolutionists make up their minds and get a THEORY that actually works. By the way, I highly doubt you'll ever find one. If you asked this question looking for a fight, you found one.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Evolution explains the diversity of life not its origins and a piece of evidence not supporting the current model (s) doesn't constitute evidence for creation.

      I found a fight? BRING IT

    • Show All
    • http://creation.com/origin-of-life-critique
      "d-mononucleotides and l-mononucleotides hinder each other’s polymerisation on an RNA template"
      http://www.pnas.org/content/95/23/13448.full.pdf
      "Short chains of nucleotides tend to fold back on themselves to form double helical Watson-Crick segments."
      Only if nearby sequences are complementary
      "Newly formed strands separate with difficulty from their parent RNA strands. The process grinds to a halt."
      Depends on the temperature of the environment.
      And that's just the beginning but I have to go to bed now, see you tomorrow.

    • Key phrase, PEER reviewed, i. e. reviewed by people who are actually qualified in the representative fields.

Loading...