That's a total contridiction! Asians, Africans, latins and Anglo Saxons are just examples of micro evolution and man has made them as well. Are you saying different races of humans are not classified in micro evolution?
Wow. Asians, Africans, Latins, and Anglo Saxons have nothing to do with macro or micro evolution. We're all 99.999999999999999999% the same, and we can all be traced back to a small number of common HUMAN ancestors.
Hey Mags, here is a link to what we were talking about on the phone - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
Excuse me? http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/macroevolution-microevolution-race/ http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/pdf/myth_reality/long.pdf
Wow, what a giant piece of trash mags. I hope you happened on that site accidentally, and aren't a frequent reader. nice anti-semitic racist site you're using as a reference.
There's no "fishadino" because the first creatures that made the transition to land were amphibians. It wasn't for a long time after that that the "dinosaur" came to be. And really, dinosaurs are a poor group, many things are lumped in with them that are not dinosaurs, this has happened because a lot of the early research done on them was done by geologists who know little to nothing about biology. There is no "dinorat" fossil because mammals rose from mammal like reptiles, this lineage predates the dinosaurs. This is the same reason there isn't a "reptiprimate". The primate group is relatively new, and it came from an existant mammal group not the mammal like reptiles. The fossil record we have is plenty good to validate evolution. We will never have the "day by day" record that creationists seem to think is needed. This is for several reasons, fossilization is a fairly rare occurance itself, add to that that some environments are just not conducive to fossilization. So there will be gaps, any good scientist will admit that.
You do know that was a figurative example. Basically the species was class and the transformation was theorized. So when the evolution took place, there had to be fossils of different classifications or maybe cousins of evolution. Basically the feline taking shape, or canines or whatever. All these possibilities and millions of fossils found yet only a very small sample size of anything resembling macro evolution.
One of the best documented transitions we have is that of mammal like reptiles into mammals. You can trace the lineage by the fossils of skulls and jaws fairly easily. Mammals and mammal like reptiles are/were both synapsids (certain type of skull morphology). We (mammals) developed ears with a 3 bone setup, allowing us to hear better than reptiles, reptiles have a 1 bone setup yet the 2 extra bones that migrated to our ears can still be located in reptile jaws. I'm not the best at explaining these things so I apologize in advance if I make them extra confusing.
I'll dig up some articles for ya, might take a bit, I've got access to academic journals through school so it might be hard to find scholarly articles open to the public.
I came up with a few, other than the last one they're dense and pretty long. None of it's very exciting so don't feel obligated to read them haha http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/Courses/Ecol485_585/Readings/Crompton_and_Parker_1978.pdf This one's a little old but had some descriptions that I thought were fairly straight forward and easy to understand http://www.yale.edu/ypmip/predation/Chapter_10.pdf Newer, but doesn't focus much on the ear structures I was talking about. They mention it in the section titled "NON-MAMMALIAN SYNAPSID PREDATORS:LONG-TERM TRENDS" And give the sources of that information in case you have access to those articles. http://www.cdb.riken.jp/emo/pub/pdf/Takechi_10314.pdf This last one is kind of a review of what we know. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fossil-reveals-ear-evolution-in-action this one's not as scholarly but Is way shorter and a much easier read than the rest
I don't agree with it as a racist standard; but why does it hold exception? This is why I think evolution is dangerous. This is how someone can use evolution to brainwash people to racial genocide. Do you think race is an exception or maybe race blending will make the ultimate race? It's no different of a human eventually getting nba player tall because it gives them an evolutionary advantage. People talk that religion is dangerous because there could be a religious prejudice to wipe out another religious belief. This same kind of thinking can be used for evolution. This becomes a very slippery slope. So what if the difference is .999999999999% difference. It's a difference and like many evolutionist believe; this is a gradual process. Meaning that difference being applied for hundreds of thousands of years can make a significant change with minor genetic mutations? And forgive me if I sound racist. I am hardly that. Actually it's impossible for me to act like that because I would be considered a bastard to that standard either way. I am half Asian and white. But I'm not afraid to draft what micro evolution really is. If I'm wrong than please explane why. Do you really think humanity is done evolving? So if we are, then it tosses out everything about the term infinite beginning and infinite end. It also hypothetically could prove there is intelligent design. If we aren't don't evolving because our physical evolution cannot cease to evolve. This is a touchy possibility and many naturalists do not want to explore this because of how sensitive it is.
Dude that's a lot of reading material. I will need some time to read all the material, so give me time to respond please. I will promise that I read all of it though and make comments on each article. I just may agree with them too. I just can't say one way or another. Fair?
Dude that's a lot of reading material. I will need some time to read all the material, so give me time to respond please. I will promise that I read all of it though and make comments on each article. I just may agree with them too. I just can't say one way or another. Fair?
