there's no proof for your argument, either. But, one would logically assume (or i should hope so) that constant miniscule changes over the course of millions of years would result in a large variety, no? you can see this, actually see it happening with bacteria, why should it be any different with other organisms?Mystical wrote:Zenith: No matter how much time you have, you cannot make a single-celled organism become a fish or a fish become an amphibian, or a mammal, or an ape become a person, or a dinosaur become a bird. That is macroevolution.
There is no proof for macroevolution.
There is proof for microevolution--small changes. Small changes that never become big enough to make anything something else.
You're right about one thing, there is no proof for macroevolution. That's because it is a myth. There are only small changes. But these small changes will add up over the years, i hope you can see that. What could stop small changes from adding up? For you to say that microevolution does not explain the differentiation of organisms on our planet would mean that there is a force that stops any kind of adaptation in an organism after a certain point. There is no proof of that, in fact there is plenty of evidence showing that microevolution does not stop; that organisms are always changing through the generations. If that were not true, then every human would be the same, or at least very similar.
