Suprise! variation, mutation, and adaption are all forms of evolution!

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time.

And yes, it does show speciation. As differences accumulate between populations due to prezygotic barriers, reproductive isolation can eventually occur and new species are formed.

So there's your proof.

Maybe not, but it's worth a try. There's always a chance that people might come to their senses as long as you keep throwing facts at them until they admit they're in denial, you never know.

As for the marriage debate, I'm for gay marriage. I figured I would just go ahead an add an argument to the pro-amendment side because it looks like no one else did.

Let's hear the proof then. If you don't think I'll believe it, maybe that's because your proof isn't strong enough.

Okay, for the last time. A man is an animal. The two are not mutually exclusive! I am a man, and in being a man, all also an animal. As a human being, Homo sapien, I am therefore a primate, mammal, and an animal.

an·i·mal

ˈanəməl/Submit

noun

1.

a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Yes, this very much describes me. You can't change the definition of animal.

Just because I'm an animal doesn't mean I'm "nothing but an animal". As a human, I'm still responsible for my actions and it still means I'm sinful- survival instinct doesn't kick in unless you actually need it, which we often don't.

Either way, we are still most definitely an animal.

I am an animal, a man, and a primate, but not an ape. More specifically, I'm a Homo sapien, or Homo sapien sapien by some.

You are also a Homo sapien, which makes you both an animal and a human, as well as a primate.

I do believe I'm an animal, but there's nothing wrong with that.

As for your claims about heaven and hell, do you have any proof?

...I suppose?

You are an animal, after all.

And yes, again, name-calling. How would you react if I said that Christianity was for suckers?

First of all, we are animals.

Anyways, maybe you should have more of an open mind. People aren't going to readily agree with you if you call them stupid for what they believe in.

I don't think that's name called, that's a fact.

Name calling is taking someone and insulting them for non reason.

So again, they adapt. So they evolve. Please tell me your definition of evolution, because it's the change in allele frequencies over time. As for your lizard example, those two populations of lizards are experiencing allopatric speciation. Given enough time, genetic differences accumulate until a reproductive barrier forms, generating two different species of lizards as according to the biological species concept. Given enough time and enough speciation, let's say the lizards on one side lose their tails, while the other grow an extra toe on each foot. More and more differences accumulate until you no longer have lizards. The common ancestor was a lizard, but now neither species is a lizard.

Again, no support to back up your evidence. For evolution, there's plenty of evidence- the fossil record, embryology, universality of the genetic code, anatomical evidence, etc.

I also hope you don't get banned. I'm not done with you yet.

No actually. I don't have a husband or a wife.

Again, please tell me how I would use evolution as an excuse for this?

Furthermore, describe to me how having sex is perversion?

Again, name-calling and denial. If you're going to make the claim that evolution is false, at least provide some proof. "It's the truth" is not a substantial argument.

This still does not clarify how evolution is an excuse for perversion. Again, please tell me how the two are related.

Again, evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, I'm not sure what you think it is. As for not adding through mutations, that's a myth. An insertion is a form of a frameshift mutation, and can happen just like a deletion can. Mutation and adaption are two different things- but mutations can result in adaptation. Again, you admit that adaptation to the changes in an environment can be observed, that's quite literally observing evolution. Speciation is not evolution, but the result of it.

I should also add that evolution as a theory can't be proved, only supported. It has very much so been observed and supported.

Again, evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time. Please tell me what you think it is.

I'm no expert on the time it takes for a population to evolve, but I do know it's not some made up number like "kazillion" years. It's still debated whether or not populations evolve quickly at once when evolutionary pressure rises suddenly or whether it's a much more gradual thing that happens constantly. Either way, it will take quite a long time, but it's been long enough for complex, multicellular organisms to evolve. Once you have sexual reproduction, things speed up quite quickly.

Please explain to me how evolution has any correlation with an excuse for perversion.

Denial and name-calling are nearly the worst form of argument to make.

What do you mean by "loss of DNA or DNA function"? If you're referring to the fact that mutations can cause fatalities- mutations aren't always detrimental, the can also be beneficial.

Furthermore, how is that contrary to evolution? Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequencies over time, which happens all the time. You can very much so see it, test it, and show it. Take peppered moths for example- darker moths were naturally selected for during the gilded age, and after the revolution light moths were selected for.

Furthermore, natural selection is only one way for populations to evolve. Artificial selection, sexual selection, mutation, gene drift, and gene flow are all processes that can cause a population to evolve.

Indeed, the bacteria did not evolve into worms or birds, but given enough time it might evolve into something else. Bateria didn't suddenly go "poof!" into multicellular organisms. Slow changes into multicellular organisms, and so on and so on resulted in the divergence of many species such as worms or birds.

So no, bacteria adapting to changes does not prove phylogenic relationships, but it does prove that allele frequencies change over time, whether due to natural selection or other factors of evolution, supporting the theory of evolution.

We're all mutants that have evolved from bacteria. Thanks for bringing party politics and name-calling into a regular debate.

You can "see" evolution. You can't observe it through fossils like Ross suggested, but we've seen it through Peppered Moths in the industrial age. Peppered Moths had higher frequencies of white-bodied moths Pre-Industrial era, but when soot became more common and was absorbed into tree bark, black-bodied moths were of higher frequency. Once the 1900's rolled around and this soot became less common, white-bodied moths became more common once again.

Evolution is highly supported yes, although it is a theory. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution, and I understand that it takes a large amount of evidence and irrefutability for a hypothesis to become a theory, but saying that there's no tinsy, bitsy, bit of a possibility that the theory is wrong is just having a closed mind.