image
13 comments
Well, we've already got one, sorta. But if we were to disprove evolution right now, it certainly wouldn't be evidence that "god" is the only other answer. False dichotomy. You should look it up.
It's been done already, look:
image
It does prove evolution, because of the fossil records. First there are dinosaurs, then there are dinosaur-bird mixtures, and then there are birds. If it was just similar designs, they would be there from the start.
Babies look like their parents, yes. But they're not exact copies. Do you look like your great-great-great-great-great grandparents?
What is a kind?
Archaeopteryx. Also, Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
Now go back to sleep, Cre(a)ti(o)nists.
You might want to look up Archaeopteryx (and no, I couldn't spell it with googling it).
And yes, while babies may look like their parents they are genetically different and that's all evolution is. It's simply a change in allele population over time. Stretch that out over millions of generations and dinosaurs become birds.
Odd, if babies DIDN'T look like their parents, that would disprove evolution and be evidence for a divine intelligent designer who is making every new life form unique by staring from scratch each time. But according to the laws of genetics, offspring should resemble their parents, and that's what we have, bronze-age myths be damned.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
