Celtic Heroes

You do not seem to be using the term evolution properly. It seems you are talking about different meanings of evolution as the same thing.

There are two types of evolution: Micro evolution and Macro evolution

Micro evolution is adaptation and changes WITHIN a species over time because of natural selection. An example would be a species of moth where some are born white and some are born brown. These moths like to sit on the bark of trees. because they brown moths blend in with the bark they are harder for predators to find and therefore are more likely to survive and reproduce than the white moths who are easy to find and eat. Over time this species becomes almost all brown moths if not completely brown because the brown moths have a much higher survivability rate. Micro evolution is accurate and observable and we know that it takes place, however micro evolution is only minor changes within a species and no new species is formed because the genetic information for the change was present from the beginning.

Macro evolution is similar to micro evolution in process but according to macro evolution over a very long period of time the species will actually "evolve" into an entirely new species because the genetic changes are actually attributed to positive mutations that were not originally present, but rather, randomly developed by chance and allowed the mutated strain of the species to have a higher survivability rate. Macro evolution requires an extremely extended period of time to occur (millions of years). Macro evolution cannot be observed by scientists and remains an unproven theory.

It is inaccurate to say evolution does not take place because micro evolution most certainly does on a micro scale within a species, however there is no evidence that proves macro evolution can occur.

You do not seem to be using the term evolution properly. It seems you are talking about different meanings of evolution as the same thing.

There are two types of evolution: Micro evolution and Macro evolution

Micro evolution is adaptation and changes WITHIN a species over time because of natural selection. An example would be a species of moth where some are born white and some are born brown. These moths like to sit on the bark of trees. because they brown moths blend in with the bark they are harder for predators to find and therefore are more likely to survive and reproduce than the white moths who are easy to find and eat. Over time this species becomes almost all brown moths if not completely brown because the brown moths have a much higher survivability rate. Micro evolution is accurate and observable and we know that it takes place, however micro evolution is only minor changes within a species and no new species is formed because the genetic information for the change was present from the beginning.

Macro evolution is similar to micro evolution in process but according to macro evolution over a very long period of time the species will actually "evolve" into an entirely new species because the genetic changes are actually attributed to positive mutations that were not originally present, but rather, randomly developed by chance and allowed the mutated strain of the species to have a higher survivability rate. Macro evolution requires an extremely extended period of time to occur (millions of years). Macro evolution cannot be observed by scientists and remains an unproven theory.

It is inaccurate to say evolution does not take place because micro evolution most certainly does on a micro scale within a species, however there is no evidence that proves macro evolution can occur.

ok, cells can change but thats not my point. we dont see anything changing today. how can we account the origin of all species from a couple little cells if we cant account for the origin of one fruit fly species from another fruit fly species? and how did the first cells begin in the first place? the oldest fossil bats still have sonar built in. and there is no fossils that indicate that there has been change.

You do not seem to be using the term evolution properly. It seems you are talking about different meanings of evolution as the same thing.

There are two types of evolution: Micro evolution and Macro evolution

Micro evolution is adaptation and changes WITHIN a species over time because of natural selection. An example would be a species of moth where some are born white and some are born brown. These moths like to sit on the bark of trees. because they brown moths blend in with the bark they are harder for predators to find and therefore are more likely to survive and reproduce than the white moths who are easy to find and eat. Over time this species becomes almost all brown moths if not completely brown because the brown moths have a much higher survivability rate. Micro evolution is accurate and observable and we know that it takes place, however micro evolution is only minor changes within a species and no new species is formed because the genetic information for the change was present from the beginning.

Macro evolution is similar to micro evolution in process but according to macro evolution over a very long period of time the species will actually "evolve" into an entirely new species because the genetic changes are actually attributed to positive mutations that were not originally present, but rather, randomly developed by chance and allowed the mutated strain of the species to have a higher survivability rate. Macro evolution requires an extremely extended period of time to occur (millions of years). Macro evolution cannot be observed by scientists and remains an unproven theory.

It is inaccurate to say evolution does not take place because micro evolution most certainly does on a micro scale within a species, however there is no evidence that proves macro evolution can occur.

You do not seem to be using the term evolution properly. It seems you are talking about different meanings of evolution as the same thing.

There are two types of evolution: Micro evolution and Macro evolution

Micro evolution is adaptation and changes WITHIN a species over time because of natural selection. An example would be a species of moth where some are born white and some are born brown. These moths like to sit on the bark of trees. because they brown moths blend in with the bark they are harder for predators to find and therefore are more likely to survive and reproduce than the white moths who are easy to find and eat. Over time this species becomes almost all brown moths if not completely brown because the brown moths have a much higher survivability rate. Micro evolution is accurate and observable and we know that it takes place, however micro evolution is only minor changes within a species and no new species is formed because the genetic information for the change was present from the beginning.

Macro evolution is similar to micro evolution in process but according to macro evolution over a very long period of time the species will actually "evolve" into an entirely new species because the genetic changes are actually attributed to positive mutations that were not originally present, but rather, randomly developed by chance and allowed the mutated strain of the species to have a higher survivability rate. Macro evolution requires an extremely extended period of time to occur (millions of years). Macro evolution cannot be observed by scientists and remains an unproven theory.

It is inaccurate to say evolution does not take place because micro evolution most certainly does on a micro scale within a species, however there is no evidence that proves macro evolution can occur.

Well explained. There is actually evidence that macro evolution can occur but, again, it's in theory. You just have to keep an open mind.

I do not understand how it is a hoax... It was just an example. Almost all the trees in the area had the same colour bark and, due to environmental conditions, changed to black or white. Yes, the moths were dead and placed on the tree for an easier understanding but the conditions still occurred. The populations of white versus black moths varied depending on the bark colour.

Obviously, the change was not as fast as some claim and neither colour of moth went completely extinct. There are always spall exceptions but the trend is still there.

ok, cells can change but thats not my point. we dont see anything changing today. how can we account the origin of all species from a couple little cells if we cant account for the origin of one fruit fly species from another fruit fly species? and how did the first cells begin in the first place? the oldest fossil bats still have sonar built in. and there is no fossils that indicate that there has been change.

Actually, the real proof is deep within the cell's nucleus which contains the DNA. Different species with similar DNA must have had a common ancestral species which separated into groups that eventually developed adaptations that set them apart from the main species. As the theory goes, of course.

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey actually proved that organic compounds can be synthesised from inorganic materials that would have been present in the atmosphere in early Earth. Water (H2O), Methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) were subjected to those conditions which includes lighting (literally the spark of life, lol.) and were able to create several amino acids (used to make protein), sugars, etc.

ok, cells can change but thats not my point. we dont see anything changing today. how can we account the origin of all species from a couple little cells if we cant account for the origin of one fruit fly species from another fruit fly species? and how did the first cells begin in the first place? the oldest fossil bats still have sonar built in. and there is no fossils that indicate that there has been change.

Actually, the real proof is deep within the cell's nucleus which contains the DNA. Different species with similar DNA must have had a common ancestral species which separated into groups that eventually developed adaptations that set them apart from the main species. As the theory goes, of course.

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey actually proved that organic compounds can be synthesised from inorganic materials that would have been present in the atmosphere in early Earth. Water (H2O), Methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) were subjected to those conditions which includes lighting (literally the spark of life, lol.) and were able to create several amino acids (used to make protein), sugars, etc.