</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by None of the those claims have been made in such a way. Evolution doesn't suddenly sprout out new features radically all at once like that. It's not sequential, a lot of what he that refers to requires many thousands of generations to happen. For it to happen in a lab is quite against all odds. Oh please, science against evolution? I've seen better arguments written on a beer mat. Next please.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the
entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by But for reptiles to evolve into mammals
scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to.
Also, I want to point out that just because you give something billions of years to happen does not mean that it will. Certain things are never going to happen mathematically.