> What is unscientific, and all to common among liberals is ignoring those who point out inconvenient facts
So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate.
No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts"
1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea.
2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many).
3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people.
4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child.
In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut.
I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding.
Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.
So against my better judgement I'm going to not ignore (downvote) you and reply briefly. Key word being briefly. I have no interest getting into a debate.
No one is ignoring those "inconvenient facts"
1. Calling them "facts" is a red flag you are not open to debate. A fact has a very specific definition and what you said is not a fact and I wouldn't call it one even if I agreed with the idea.
2. The "no transition fossils" idea has been thoroughly debunked (there are indeed many).
3. The Cambrian Explosion has been debated and written on quite significantly and the research is pretty convincing for most people.
4. On your comment about the speed of evolution. The number of mutations needed to change the DNA of a chimpanzee to that of a human is far fewer than a single celled organism. A common first program in bioinformatics courses is to calculate the longest subset of similar DNA between species. The differences are very subtle. Which incidentally is why a small mutation can cause a human child to be born with very different physical properties than a healthy human child.
In fact, if you take the time to study how DNA works it is very clear to see how evolution works. After studying the subject it very clear and clean cut.
I think one of the biggest problems with science education is that we talk a out evolution on a marcro scale. Talking about it at a DNA level I think the amount of closed-mindedness to deny it would be astounding.
Edit: As another aside, assuming you are Christian, what is it about the bible that you think 7 days and 7 nights is to be taken literally? The bible is meant to be allegorical not literal. Most Christians I know have long since stated that they believe in evolution and that they do not feel that contradicts their faith.