Ryan2065
Well-Known Member
Common sense tells you this... Then again depends what you mean by "major change"... The development of a sensitivity to light could be very beneficial to a creature that could dry out in the sunlight... The development of flight obviously is a great development for any animal... There are other things that would be great developments that could have helped animals... Development of scales for some armor =p I could keep going on.The question I have is 'is there evidence that natural selection on occasions has preferred the new 'offshoot' lifeform over its ancestors? This is definitely true for minor variations, it is also possible for a major change. I am too skeptical of the evidence that evolutionists provide to believe in it.
What do you mean by the power of evolution?Many would say that if minor changes are proven, and evolution is just a great series of minor steps, then why not believe in the power of evolution?
So just becasue it can happen and there is evidence in the fossils that it did happen isn't enough for you that it did happen? You would still rather believe that God just said "Bam, animals" and they were there?Because I have not been shown the evidence where many small changes changed one species into something totally different. The fruitflies under the x-ray doesn't do it for me. Just because it is mathematically probable that animals will evolve over many years doesn't make it true. I find it very hard to believe in anything unless I see harder evidence than this.
More substantial evidence than what? What do you know of evolution already? A quick google search gives me this...I would have no problem believing in evolution if only I was shown more substantial evidence. If there is, refer me to it(books, websites, journals, etc)
http://www.google.com/search?q=evol...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
To me it all depends on the conditions for evolution... If there is a time where animals would be more prone to mutations or a place where this might occur then I would say that in this time there would be more mutations... Otherwise the mutations are gradual over time.Just a question for you evolutionists, which of you believe in punctuated equilibrium, and which of you don't, and why or why not?