So this is at least the 4th time I've brought this up, but it's the first time you plan on trying to read it? Well done at just trolling instead of actually attempting to have a real conversation/debate here.

Answer: his devotion to the lord Jesus Christ.

Every post on this subject is straight out of the Creationists' play book. Bringing up Nebraska Man was the icing on the cake.

It has nothing to do with faith and I thank you for your condisention hopey.

I used genus because I know there are tons of different species that are out there and more are found every year. But a new species of spider is still inharently a spider from which it came. I stopped a genus because Im not a zoologist. I studied history. Regadless of there being a "wall" or not Im not convinced of anything creating anything drasticaly different.

I've never personally withnessed a butterfly turn into a hippopotamus, so I don't believe in macro evolution.

reproduce it in a lab and then get back to me

Replace "species" with "genus" in this diagram

http://api.ning.com/files/oR*3jF8D0N...26height%3D505

FYI, I have 3 degrees in the sciences including an MS.

BTW, does being a prick come naturally to you, or do you work
at it?

What degrees would these be? From what institute(s) as well?

out of curiosity, why would you get two BSCs and a MSc?

That's a lie.

Every time I try to have a real conversation/debate, I run into a prick wall
in here. See every one of Hopey's posts.

Why do you care? So you can make some inane comment about
me not being qualified to speak scientifically?

K but its still light. And if you take a red generation of it and a blue generation you'll have a purple generation of... light. I still dont see the macro here.

I am just curious.

BTW, my earlier comment about the Nebraska man was just to illustrate that
historically when Darwinists claim they have "proof" or something, it isn't
proof at all.

How many times in the last 20 years have Darwinists been prancing around claiming
some fossil was a "missing link" only to have it proven to not be a missing link at all?

You don't seem to realize that genetics plays a larger role in the evidence for evolution than that of fossils.

Why are you so defensive about it?

Ok... The degrees are all from state universities in the US, but
they admittedly are not in the biological sciences.

Maybe because people in here are "offensive" about it?

Why don't you just answer the question instead of giving us clues?

You assume from one sentence in one post that I base my disbelief
in UCD solely on the lack of fossil evidence.

Just trying to find out if it was computer science, or political science, or something not really applicable to the conversation.

This.

well, therein lies the obvious problem with the parable stance regarding the Bible. Anytime scientists absolutely disprove a passage from the Bible (Noah's ark, adam/eve, etc.), Christians claim they knew this all along, that it was simply a metaphor. the glaring hypocrisy is that you never hear of any christians claiming adam and eve was a parable before Darwin came about, and if, by some off chance, they did they were laughed at (if lucky). once scientists come in and point out a flow, Christians pretty pathetically try to reconcile the science with their passage. that's the biggest difference between science / religion, IMO... scientists try to gather ideas from the evidence, religious people try to gather evidence from their presupposed ideas.

My only assumption is that you have a very inaccurate understanding of evolution.

in natural selection, species don't drastically change. it's a very slow and gradual process. it's hard to comprehend the amount of time involved. our lives feel like a long time and they are the blink of an eye on evolutionary time scale.

a good analogy is the process of growing up from a child to an adult. there is no obvious point in time when you can say a person has transitioned into adulthood. looking at them from day to day you can't even tell they have changed at all. but if you take a picture of them when they are 14 and then again when they are 44, you can tell they have changed.

that's how evolution works, but instead of taking place during decades it takes place over hundreds of millions of years. you don't look like a fish, but if you trace your family tree back half a billion years, your ancestors were swimming around in the ocean.