Comment Re:Here we go again... (Score 1) 3451
The key word here, folks, was "new".
Wouldn't new strains of bacteria be evidence for variation within a kind according to natural selection - like Darwin's finches? If you are calling this 'evolution' then I agree. If you are talking about "The Theory of Evolution" or macroevolution, this requires different evidence.
You don't need billions for support, just a few. Like the dinosaur/bird and Lucy.
Not so. Darwinism claims that species transform into new ones over long periods of time with gradual changes. Each intermediate form would have to be viable. This would result in many more transitional species than we see in the fossil record.
Wouldn't new strains of bacteria be evidence for variation within a kind according to natural selection - like Darwin's finches? If you are calling this 'evolution' then I agree. If you are talking about "The Theory of Evolution" or macroevolution, this requires different evidence.
You don't need billions for support, just a few. Like the dinosaur/bird and Lucy.
Not so. Darwinism claims that species transform into new ones over long periods of time with gradual changes. Each intermediate form would have to be viable. This would result in many more transitional species than we see in the fossil record.
