warmaker : Interesting post, but it doesn't explain how a species can change so dramatically over the course of thousands...or millions of years. Yes, it explains natural selection within a short time-frame but just by expanding the concept to a larger time-frame we can not prove evolution. Scientists talk about the first organisms being micro-organisms. Now, I can accept short term natural selection but I can't comprehend the journey that it takes for a micro-organism to become what we have today as a human being.

Middlemoor : Take what I said and expand if over a million years.

You have micro organisms that have different traits within the species. So, you have a ton of tiny organisms that react differently to the environment. As they react to various environmental changes, some adapt and succeed, others fail or react differently. Eventually, you get different species because they can't combine genes from all the changes. It's called Genetic Drift.

So, while this is happening, some species are developing appendages, more advanced ways to eat new food (reaction to new environment), and they end up being more advanced animals. This change happens over and over and and is constantly happening today. Species are competing and winning and losing right now.

Ultimately, if you don't or won't accept the idea, I can't change anything by talking. The idea is simply this: Animals react and change based on their environments. Animals develop new characteristics to allow themselves survival.

Allow Carl Sagan to explain better then I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ONwp56pMBE&feature=related

warmaker : The problem is that you can't apply a simple model of natural selection to everything and then expand it over millions of years. At least, not without accepting gaps in the information which throw into question the validity of the whole model.

Middlemoor : Why not? Why can't you take a model, make it larger, spread it out, and believe it? Also, I said nothing of gaps. The gaps you speak of are where mutation occurs or animals develop new traits. That's the nice thing about life. It was made to continue.

What do you believe, then?

warmaker : I don't believe that you can simply expand the model of natural selection over millions of years. I am doubtful that is the logic applied by the scientific community today.

I personally believe that there is no definitive answer to life's origins. I simply choose to accept that God created us, at some point.

Middlemoor : Perhaps I am not explaining it as well as others can and perhaps you will never looked to be swayed.

Either way, it's fun trying to explain. I guess I'll practice and try again in the future.

I understand what you're saying but I don't agree that short-term natural selection can be applied to explain evolution in the wider sense. It's just a difference of opinions, that's fine.

Middlemoor :
warmaker :

Hey guys, I'm glad you two resolved your debate, but next time you choose to have a debate, would you mind having it in PMs because this whole page is a bunch of sandwich posting. I wouldn't mind so much if sandwich posting weren't against the rules. I'm not trying to nag, but pretty please have your debate in PMs next time so the thread isn't full of sandwich posting.

XxChaosxX : This is no problem next time. I kept it in here because I thought what we were discussing was completely on topic and others may have joined in to indulge in some conversation.

Where is the line drawn between PM discussion and keeping things in the forum to encourage conversation?

What's sandwich posting and when/why is it against the rules? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I thought that was a mature, miniature debate that was on-topic and in the right forum, being that this is a sub-forum of "Debate / Logic / News Discussion".

I believe in Micro-Evolution...but I do not believe in Macro Evolution, as I believe in the creation theory. I only believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old, so there hasn't really been enough time for any Macro Evolution to happen.

Traduweise : well that saved me pointing that out, thats what i was going to say, humans and monkees are 2 evolutions af a common ancestor and the reason why the ancestors commonly die out is the same as why they evolve, they cant survive as they are.
a good example of evolution id say is the immune system, which constantly changes and modifies itself to survive different things, like mosqiutoes, they can develop an immunity to a poison in days.

The immune system isn't an example of evolution. The immune system was designed (by nature or God, whatever you believed) to create antibodies against certain invasive cells. That doesn't mean the entire immune system has evolved or that the immunity will be passed on to your children.

XxChaosxX : There seems to be a common misconception about evolution. It never claims that humans evolved from monkeys, it states that they had a common ancestor that they both evolved from, forming two different lineages. Another mistake is claiming that evolution sees a need for survival, and creates it. Evolution works by having the surviving animals pass on their genetics into the new generation. If a giraffe has a long neck, but a different giraffe has a shorter one and can't reach the trees, it will most likely die. The giraffe with the longer neck would survive because it can eat, and it's "long neck gene" would be passed on to it's offspring.

XxChaosxX : I also don't believe in evolution almost in the same manner as you. If humans evolved why are are there still primitive species on the earth. Also the bible says God places man over all life so why do scientist classify us as apes.

mr.pace : As has been pointed out several times, there are no "primitive species" left. As in, there are no species left alive that other organisms have evolved from (minus very recent adaptations of course). Humans are classified as apes because humans share very recent common ancestors with other apes, as well as being similiar in many ways (like how humans and chimpanzee DNA is about 98% identical).

Traduweise : I understand the evolution theory, but I don't believe any of it. There is 100% no possible way for any scientist to prove anything in the theory of evolution. If so, way is it still a theory.

mr.pace : Science does not "prove" anything, it disproves. A scientific theory is an explanation for a set of events and data that has been accepted by the scientific community. Whether or not you believe it does not matter. The evidence is there, and the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation that covers it all.

Middlemoor : Since no one else has answered you... I believe that sandwich posting is the back and forth posting between two people. As far as I know it is not against the rules, but some people dislike it because when you look at a thread later you just see two people talking and that is it. It is not their fault that no one else posted during that time, hence why I do not know of any rules against it. I agree with your assessment that it was a nice, mature little debate.

Now, to respond to the thread in general... I believe in evolution. For people to dismiss the theory of evolution because it cannot be proven "100%" I would like to point out that we cannot prove the existence of a God "100%" either, yet you still believe in that now don't you? There is a lot of data supporting evolution, and we can track origins back through millennia, so it is not something that is easy to dismiss.

As for why humans and apes exist at the same time... it is called divergent evolution. We share a common ancestor, we did not evolve directly from modern-day apes. That is like saying house cats evolved from lions. They didn't, but they share a common ancestor.

Traduweise : I suppose you're right though scientist should stop trying to play God and learn what He has to say.