Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
ht, I mean according to doctor who ( he's seen evolution first hand) fish became quadrupeds by swimming in shallow water and randomly mutated, Seriously how do you know it takes millions of years if... oh wait you speculate and speculation isn't evidence
Actually it's not called speculation. A scientist has data. He forms a hypothesis on that data. From there the hypothesis is looked at, tested, proved or disapproved. That is something of a scientific process.
Just because the good doctor wasn't there doesn't mean it is impossible to know it happened. I can write a paper on 3rd century Roman politics despite not being there. You know why? Because the passage of time, and event, anything, leaves evidence. Sometimes a little. Sometimes a lot. From that it is possible to build theories, test them. Sometimes they will stand up to the test, sometimes they wont. It is absurd to take the line "well, it can't be true because no one was there" You see, that is where science differs from mere opinion, faith, whatever. It is about scientifically plausible theories which are constantly challenged scientifically. They don't stand up to them they are removed, they do and they can be considered reliable, maybe even proven.
Now, as to it taking millions of years, let me do this simply (not chronologically accurate I know). Scientists know roughly how old the earth if. Let us say for the first 50 million years there are no land animals - only fossils of sea creatures. However fossils towards the end of this period are starting to show some basic differences to those towards the beginning. Then say another 3 million years later, we start getting animals with basic legs who bare some similarities to fossils of sea creatures (especially those who had been showing differences.) What does this tell us? It takes millions of years for such major changes to occur.
The illustration above posted by PVS wasn't even from a scientific journal..the text at the bottom of the picture indicates that the picture was generated by a New York Times' artist...This same deceptive strategy was used when presenting "Java Man" and the "Neanderthals" years ago. A picture was drawn by a newspaper artist, which wasn't based on any skeletal remains. I believe with Java Man the an entire picture was contrived just from a tooth..a freaking tooth!!
Again more of the same silly drivel, meant to confuse..and keep people believing that Darwin's theory has some sort of validity to it.
You are really a bit paranoid. It's not meant to be viewed as a real life picture. It is a diagram. A pictorial explanation of something people might not understand. You know, have you ever opened a science book? See a diagram of the solar system? The human body? The precipitation process? The nitrogen cycle? All 100% proven things? They will look like that. They will be done by artists to be used to aid peoples understanding of what is being said. It's not some conspiracy. It's not a form of brain washing. It is a valid learning aid for those people who prefer to understand the theory on offer and why it is such a strong theory - instead of remaining ignorant about a theory have little clear understanding of. And they will be used by the media who do articles on things such as this, so the readers will have some idea about what is going on.
And once again, if you bother to learn a bit about biology you would discover a great deal can be learnt from a single tooth, and it is possible to hypothesise about what the owner of the tooth looked like. Hypothesise, not prove, but plenty of times they hypothesis has been proven when later evidence comes to light.
According to evolution a virus can possibly become a horse.
No, that is not right. And it shows ignorance in regards to the actual evolutionary process. Evolution is not about something (like a flower) suddenly changing into something else (like a girl with red hair.) But a virus does evolve. Just because it hasn't become a duck does not mean it hasn't. It has to evolve to survive. It mutates and become more virulent, more infectious, able to infect different species, has a different incubation period, more robust etc. On a small scale it would be mere mutation, but when it is the whole viral strain, well, that could be considered some form of evolution. If the bird flu mutates constantly to become more infectious to humans it could be seen as evolving to better exist.