Comment: Evolution is different than

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You failed to address (see in situ)

Evolution is different than

Evolution is different than the origins of life (though the idea is that we trace our heritage back to single-celled organisms). Regardless of how far back you think you can go, we can hardly deny a process right in front of our faces -- testable, provable, repeatable, visible. Darwin's essay was indeed ironically titled "On the Origin of Species" since it did not actually address that -- leading to much confusion to current day.

Regarding the human eye, this is a popular argument for people who deny the process of evolution, but it is a bad argument. There are entire fields of study devoted to the evolution of the eye or the bacterial motor flagellum (your next argument, right?). It looks eyes are actually pretty easy to evolve. There are extant species who have evolved eyes several times, all unrelated to each other, it appears. Plus, our eyes are actually pretty crappy. There are many better ones in the animal kingdom. Why would your god give us such pathetic equipment? If he is a designer, he either doesn't like us or he is pretty bad at it. What about our knees? What about all the junk DNA we carry. Why the post-anal tail when in fetus stage? The whys are endless, and not answered by anything the religious have discovered. However, the process of evolution answers all of these questions quite well. If you find an instance where we don't see a connection, we shouldn't throw our hands up in the air and attribute it to god -- instead, we should study it. Christianity and other religions are built on a "god of the gaps" history. Anything that wasn't understood was attributed to a deity with no further study required. Galileo got in a lot of trouble for saying that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The religious didn't like it because they claimed to know the mind of the creator. Of course, now this is universally agreed upon. The gaps of our knowledge and understand keep getting smaller with study and exploration. God doesn't do nearly as much as he was once thought to (lightening and thunder and floods come to mind).

It is amusing to me that you rail against something that is provable and visible and contrarily pimp for something that nobody can know or prove. You speak about your god as if he is predictable, yet ironically omniscient and all-powerful.

You really think god wrote the bible or the scrolls? Or perhaps they were divinely inspired (what do you think about Joseph Smith, who convinced people of the same)? Religion is completely manmade and leads to incredibly selfish thinking.

You sit here and you recognize how badly controlled and duped the population is who votes for the dems or the republicans (sheep), yet you subscribe to a process that has been used as a primary means of controlling the peasantry since recorded history. How do you not see the similarities?

As for macro evolution, there are several means of speciation -- geographic, being the most commonly observed among larger organisms.