quantumcahill (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thank you!! You rock most efficiently. Please make more videos!!!

middlekk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It's not JUST the fossil record that truly proves macro-evolution (ie, speciation). For example, ring species are observable today. This provides evidence for macro-evolution. DNA also provides evidence for speciation. The entire field of evo-devo is based on understanding this evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming.

pienipaha (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Some fundie has been picking on me on one of my videos all day (JOL-human life). I don't have enough room to explain my points in detail let alone provide proof so instead I mentioned some literature he could grab and study for himself. But then he says he doesn't want to hear it from a "sci-fi" writer! Then why would he take my word for it? Why start poking the beehive in the first place if it's so easy he can just ignore it? That goes for me too in this case, I shouldn't have answered at all.

r00tcause (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

As for your actual question about the fossil record. The theory came about before the fossil record. It was PREDICTED in the theory that we would find transitional forms, the fact that we DID find them was a validation of the theory. The fossils came AFTER the idea. However, that does not mean it is PROOF they were not all just created that way but its by far the best explanation for such as if they were, they would have had have been created by god to make it APPEAR they evolved.

r00tcause (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Microevolution describes small changes within a species. Even creationists admit this is real. Macroevolution is what happens when enough changes accumulate over time to create a new species, meaning a species that can no longer breed with its original parent species. The problem with the creationist argument, is that macroevoluton occurs simply as *microevolution over a greater time and with a seperation (no interbreeding) of one population from another". The point: They are the SAME theory.

SexyMelon (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"How do scientists truly know that the fossil record truly proves macro-evolution?"Actually, it doesn't. Fossil record is used in conjecture with the fact of evolution to determine the historical progression of variation of a few species that lived on Earth some time ago. Although that is, too, called "Evolution".I guess it could be used to prove speciation though, but, we can observe speciation directly nowadays, so what's the point.

TheAgnosticAspie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yes I have seen all of AronRa's vids on evolution, its just that this is the particualar area of evolution I have always been sceptical off! And its also the area of evolutionary theory that so many creationists hark on that "their are no transitional forms" and also "Their has never been an observation of a species turning into another species" and stuff like that.

GRVDA (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ehh macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer timespan, ergo there is no differance between marco and micro accept for it takes much much longer. You have seen all the vids?

TheAgnosticAspie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This is one of the topics of evolution I've always been sceptical about. The macro-evolution of species and speciation.How do scientists truly know that the fossil record truly proves macro-evolution?

Sorastor (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Godwin's Law: As a conversation progresses, the probability of Hitler being mentioned approaches 1.Basically, Godwin's ACTUAL Law tells us nothing but 'When people talk, the more they talk, the more likely it is they'll mention something specific.' Godwin's Law as it applies on the internet is a lot funnier, and therefor more legitimate based alone on its humour value.