perhaps you missed it in my first post when i said that this is indeed what I believe. However, proving it is something completely different. Moonbeam, we both agree that macro evoloution or something like it took place, however, what I am trying to point out here is that we cannot prove it as fact! And until we can, I will not recognize it as fact. Instead I will recognize it as what I believe.
Um, this is not true. If you say that we are human, then your above statement is correct. But you aren't. You are saying we are human because we evolved to be. YOU ARE SAYING HOW. While i believe that this is probably the correct answer, we cannot prove it! You may find it as self-evident as Christians find the existence of God. However, neither party can drum up undeniable proof one way or the other. You use a string of logic that follows as such: because we have unearthed fossils of simple organisms from the past, then most likely that is what existed. Because the most recent fossils are more complex, then it seems likely that the simpler organisms somehow morphed into the more complex ones over time. And since we exist, then it may be likely that these simple organisms that may have formed into these more comples organisms eventually formed into us.
Ok . . . now prove it. where is the hard evidence that makes this line of thinking undeniable? A big problem with macro evolution in comparison to micro evolution is how these genes supposedly mutate favorably. For instance, in bacteria or viruses, micro evolution is easy, a few snippets of dna changes and boom, drug-resistance. In higher organisms, this becomes much more difficult. What happens if a toxic gas flooded the entire earth. Would we adapt? No we'd all die. Why? because unlike the smaller organisms, our reproduction takes waaaaaaaay too long to allow for evolution like that. Punctuated equilibrium? Very unlikely. What, someone all of a sudden has a baby with gills that filter out toxins? Unfortunately, the more complex an organism is, the less likely it is to be able to alter its genetic structure into a new species, just be common sense alone, you can say that there are too many genes to organize together, and all mutations would have to be favorable somehow, and enough mutations to make a new species. While i believe in macro evolution, I can only say that it is the theory that makes the most sense to me . . . but this is based solely on my sensibilities, and my faith that somehow, this is possible. But in thinking about it, it seems very difficult for larger organisms to have so many concerted microevolutions as to allow for macro evolution. there simply is no proof, why can't you accept that moonbeam?