The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Darwinian Evolution is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 86555
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




I will be "Pro" in this debate. I propose that Darwinian Evolution, the evolving of speciation over time, is false. An example would be man did not "evolve" from a common ancestor of monkeys.

According to Berkeley paleontologist James Valentine and his colleagues, the “Cambrian explosion is real, it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.” Indeed, as more fossils are discovered it becomes clear that the Cambrian explosion was even more abrupt and extensive than previously envisioned.”
Cambrian explosion
The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.
-Ambulocetus and Rotocetus
The Science of Ambulocetus Rodhocetus
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."


I will explain why Darwin's theory of evolution is true.

What is Darwinian evolution?

"So what is 'Darwinism'? This simple and profoundly beautiful theory, the theory of evolution by natural selection, has been so often misunderstood, and even on occasion maliciously misstated, that it is worth pausing for a moment to set out its essential points and claims. We'll be coming back to these repeatedly as we consider the evidence for each.

In essense, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species -- perhaps a self-replicating molecule -- that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.

When you break that statement down, you find that it really consists of six components: evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective mechanisms of evolutionary change." [3]

"Did evolution actually take place? And if it did, did evolution produce us, too? In plain language, I would answer those questions that only way that fact and science allow. Yes, it did. And yes, we are the children of evolution, too." [4]

How does natural selection work?

"The mechanism of evolutionary change, co-discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace, operates as follows:

a) Populations tend to increase indefinitely in a geometric ratio: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, ...
b) In a natural environment, however, population numbers stabilize at a certain level.
c) Therefore, there must be a "struggle for existence" because not all of the organisms produced can survive.
d) There is variation in every species.
e) In the struggle for existence, those individuals with variations that are better adapted to the environment leave behind more offspring than individuals that are less well-adapted. This is known in the jargon of the trade as differential reproductive success. [6]

Can evolution create new species?

"...the differences between species are indeed nothing more than the sum total of differences between their genes. If microevolution can redesign one gene...what principles of biochemistry of molecular biology would prevent it from redesigning dozens or hundreds of produce a distinctly new species? There are no such principles..." [7]


[1] Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow. Pages 153-154.
[2] Jerry Coyne, What caused the Cambrian explosion?
[3] Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. Page 3. {}
[4] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God. Page 21.
[5] Michael Behe, Interview with Michael Behe on "The Edge of Evolution". {}
[6] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things.
[7] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God. Page 108.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate.

“Darwin's strongest critics were scientists, and the theologians who criticized him objected mainly to his philosophical insistence on natural causes and his denial of design--which Princeton's Charles Hodge regarded as ‘tantamount to atheism.’ Even today, many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists, and a growing number of critics are credentialed scientists” (Jonathan Wells, “The Problem of Evidence,” Forbes, Feb. 5, 2009).

“A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully” (Wolfgang Smith, cited from Ian Taylor, Origins Answer Book, p. 107).

*(Meaning to challenge evolution is dangerous for your career whether you are correct or not.)

“Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism, They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels” (William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 180).

Evolution of whales-

The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were MISIDENTIFIED as belonging to that group. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were.

In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.

From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.

So hienas with hooves are where whales came from.


You began this debate with the assertion that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. That's a pretty bold statement.

When I hear someone say that evolution is false, I assume that they're a misinformed religious believer with a head full of misconceptions. Maybe you can tell me precisely what you think is wrong with Darwin's theory of evolution. You brought up the Cambrian explosion; perhaps you think that the Cambrian explosion falsifies the theory of evolution somehow?

"The Cambrian explosion might have been the result of a perfect storm of factors that opened the field to new innovative body plans: predators accelerated the evolution of hard body parts, a global ice age had just ended, the Hox genes that control body plans may have developed at this time, and atmospheric oxygen may have been rising. We might also have underestimated the progress in the Precambrian because those animals were tiny or soft and didn’t leave much of a fossil record." [3]

You quoted Charles Darwin re: intermediate fossils.

"...plenty of examples of transitional forms have been discovered since Darwin's time. Just look in any paleontology text. The fossil Archeopteryx -- part reptile, part bird -- is a classic example of a transitional form. In my debate with Duane Gish, a presented a slide of the newly-discovered Ambulocetus natans -- a beautiful example of a transitional form from land mammal to whale (see Science, January 14, 1994, p. 180).We now have a treasure trove of human transitional forms." [1]

"...we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history - large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful 'intermediates'. I shall emphasize in Chapters 9 and 10 that we don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure, even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong." [2]

You quoted Jonathan Wells, who points out that "many critics of Darwinism are not religious fundamentalists."

Here's another quote from Jonathan Wells: "Father's [Reverend Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." [4]

Ironic, don't you think?


[1] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things
[2] Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth
[3] Bob Seidensticker, Forget the Cambrian Explosion -- Here's a SERIOUS Biodiversity Event
[4] Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

See comments for links to online sources.
Debate Round No. 2


There are certain arguments proposed to make evolution happen.


Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.

Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.

In a short time, corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations, transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.

These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists used to believe them to be random sequences and useful for evolutionary processes to mess with and change into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be very useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it would actually most likely kill the host.



Re: Transposons

Transposons, which were once thought of as "junk DNA", have now been shown to play a role in gene regulation.

"Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as "junk" are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday." [1]

"...ENCODE’s phase two results indicated that at least 80 percent of the human genome consists of functional DNA." [2]

Why are Creationists so excited about this discovery? Well, Creationism looks pretty stupid if the Creator created us with a bunch of useless, extraneous DNA. But is the existence of junk DNA essential to the truth of Darwinism? No.

In Round 1, I gave you a rudimentary description of Darwin's theory of evolution. I sought to answer basic questions like: What is evolution? How does natural selection work? How does evolution produce new species? Junk DNA was never mentioned; it's not cruicial. " proved by the convergence of evidence from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpeotology, entomology, biogeography, anatomy, physiology, and comparative anatomy." [3]

Bad Design

We don't even need "junk DNA" to make Creationism look stupid!

"Every species is imperfect in many ways. Kiwis have useless wings, whales have a vestigial pelvis, and our appendix is a nefarious organ. What I mean by "bad design" is the notion that if organisms were built from scratch by a designer -- one who used the biological building blocks of nerves, muscles, bone, and so on -- they would not have such imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, it's precisely what we expect from evolution. We've learned that evolution does not start from scratch. New parts evolve from old ones, and have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromisses: some features that work pretty well, but not as well as they might, or some features -- like the kiwi wing -- that don't work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers.


One of nature's worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curious thing is that it is much longer than it needs to be. Rather than taking a direct route from the brain to the larynx, a distance of about a foot in humans, the nerve runs down into our chest, loops around the aorta and a ligament derviced from an artery, and then travels back up ("recurs") to connect to the larynx. It winds up being three feet long. In giraffes the nerve takes a similar path, but one that runs all the way down that long neck and back up again: a distance fifteen feet longer than the direct route!" [4]


[1] Alok Jha, The Guardian. September 5, 2012.
[2] Fazale Rana, Reasons To Believe
[3] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things
[4] Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True. Pages 81 - 82
Debate Round No. 3


I propose that there is a difference between variation within a species and evolution. There is a difference between natural selection/survival of the fittest and evolution.
For example, it is often stated that many African Americans are faster, stronger, better leapers, etc because the fitter slaves were bread to come up with "super slaves", if you will. This is an example of survival of the fittest. If you were fit, you had a better chance of survival in this type of environment. This led us to a variation of potential within a species. This event led to NBA stars, NFL stars, etc being mostly African American. It was a product of "survival of the fittest" within the species. What it was not, was evolution. We can meet our potential within the species through survival of the fittest. What we cannot do is become a new species. We can manipulate our species advancement from within the species. We can max out our species' potential, but never jump over the boundries of our species. If only the fittest humans were allowed to reproduce, our species would become physically stronger overall but not a new species. If we only allowed geniuses to reproduce, we would become a smarter species, but never a new species. We have never witnessed a change in species.
Another example of this idea is the fact that I look different than my father. This is not evolution. This is a variation of the limited but vast information available allowing for me to be variated from my father but within the limits of the construct of my species.
Some evolutionists will point to changes in bacteria, but the same still applies. The fittest survive, yes, but within the constructs of the species. The bacteria never become anything other than bacteria. Stronger? Yes, but under the same principles as my above examples. The bacteria can meet their maximum potential as bacteria within a given environment. What they cannot do is become a new species.
The Cambrian Explosion poses a problem for evolution theory. The explosion is proposed as happening about 580 million years ago. The explosion is then proposed to have taken place within a stretch of 10 million years to 30 million years. For simplicity's sake, there were no complex creatures for billions of years, then there was a relatively fast bloom of complex species, and the finding of claimed "intermediaries" has been rare. And many creatures/plants that were fossilized or trapped in amber, that are hundreds of millions of years old, look the same as they do today. If a creature is dated at 350 million years old and looks like it does today, that leaves little time after the explosion for any "evolution". I then ask, where is the intermediary of the 350 million year old creature? Why are intermediaries rare? And if the proposed intermediaries are rare, it seems reasonable to say "are the intermediaries" wishful thinking?"



Douglas Futuyma says, "Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual." [1] That's the definition of evolution, from an eminent evolutionary biologist. If it is true that African Americans have become "faster, stronger, better leapers, etc." through selective breeding, that is evolution because it is "a change in the properties of population of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual."

Philip Johnson argues, "The mutation/selection mechanism has never produced anything more impressive than variations in preexisting populations (microevolution)." [2] Here's the rebuttal, from biologist Kenneth R. Miller:

P1) The differences between species are nothing more than the sum total of differences between their genes.
P2) The mutation/selection mechanism can redesign genes.
P3) There are no principles of biochemistry or molecular biology that would prevent the mutation/selection mechanism from redesigning dozens or hundreds of genes to produce a distinctly new species.
Conslusion: In this way, the mutation/selection mechanism can produce new species.
"Ernest Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation seems to demonstrate precisely how natural selection, in conjuction with other forces and contingencies of nature, can and does produce new species. Whether they agree or disagree with the theory of allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium, scientists all agree that natural selection can produce significant change." [3]

Small changes add up to large changes, over long periods of time. New species do emerge. The fossil record attests to this.

I addressed the Cambrian explosion in Round #1 (see comments) and Round #2. It is a remarkable event in our evolutionary history. But it does not invalidate the truth of Darwinism.

As for the "living fossils" argument: "The existence of living fossils (organisms that have not changed for millions of years) simply means that they evolved a structure adequate for their relatively static and unchanging environment, so they stopped once they could maintain their ecological niche. Sharks and many other sea creatures are relatively unchanged over millions of years, while other sea creatures, such as marine animals, have obviously changed rapidly and dramatically. Evolutionary change or lack of change, as the case may be, all depends on how and when a species immediate environment changes." [3]


[2] Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God. Pages 107-108.
[3] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things
Debate Round No. 4


Biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study replied,"Pre Cambrian rabbits." What does this mean?

Such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in the Precambrian strata.

Typically, in cases of species being found out of order as compared to the claims of current evolutionary theory constructs, if an out-of-order fossil is found according to their current, standard view, then it is simply presented as new evidence to give us a "better understanding" of Evolution. Evolution is simply assumed and then used to explain the fossils as aposed to there ever being a challenge to Evolution Theory. But if we assume 600 million + year old rabbits existed, our interpretations of the fossil record and "Evolution" are not even close, and need re-examined.

What does it mean if a rock layer claimed as "Ordovician" contains distinctly Cambrian era fossils? Paleontologists have been looking at this dilema after finds in North Africa for example.

If Evolution is 100% fact, there should be intermediaries everywhere and in abundance. It seems to me that this incredible transition couldn't take place in just a few steps. Legs into flippers, fur into oily skin, etc. There should be thousands, or millions of transitions from a frog to a lizard, for example, not 3, 4, or 5 proposed intermediaries from different parts of the world. In the illustrstions I have seen, there are typically 5 illustrations of 5 creatures. Why is it never 55 intermediaries or 105 intermediaries? Where are the multitude of intermediary forms? In the reality of hundreds of millions of years, if Evolution were true, from a simple organism to a dog, we would have tens of thousands of subtle transitions. For example we would have a simple organism, then thousands of somewhat similar creatures that are a little different, then a little different from that, and then a little different than that, etc. If we do not find numerous similar but obviously different creatures, we have no evidence of true evolution. The theory, in truth, proposes many, many subtle and gradual changes over millions of years, not a few extreme changes from a crocodile to a "whale-croc", and then a whale. If the intermediaries are that extreme, they are guesses and philosophy based rather than scientific scrutiny based, faith in the "hoped for".


Gaps in the fossil record

"Creationists demand just one transitional fossil. When you give it to them, they then claim that there is a gap between these two fossils and ask you to present a transitional form between these two. If you do, there are now two more gaps in the fossil record, and so on ad infinitum. Simply pointing this out refutes the argument." [1]

"Eldredge and Gould...argued that gaps in the fossil record do not indicate missing data of slow and stately change; rather, "missing" fossils are evidence of rapid and episodic change (punctuated equilibrium). Using Mayr's allopatric speciation, where small and stable "founder" populations are isolated at the periphery of the larger population's range, Eldredge and Gould showed that the relatively rapid change in this smaller gene pool creates new species but leaves behind few, if any, fossils. The process of fossilization is rare and infrequent anyway, but it is almost nonexistent during these times of rapid speciation because the number of individuals is small and the change is swift. A lack of fossils may be evidence for rapid change, not missing evidence for gradual evolution." [1]

Why are fossils rare?

"The formation of fossils is straightforward, but requires a very specific set of circumstances. First, the remains of an animal or plant must find their way into water, sink to the bottom, and get quickly covered by sediment so that they don't decay or get scattered by scavengers.


Once buried safely in the sediments, the hard parts of fossils become infiltrated or replaced by dissolved minerals. What remains is a cast of a living creature that becomes compressed into rock by the pressure of sediments piling up on top. Because soft parts of plants and animals aren't easily fossilized, this immediately creates a severe bias in what we can know about ancient species. Bones and teeth are abundant, as are shells and the hard outer skeletons of insects and crustaceans. But worms, jellyfish, bacteria, and fragile creatures like birds are much rarer, as are all terrestrial species compared to aquatic ones. Over the first 80 percent of the history of life, all species were soft-bodied, so we have only a foggy window into the earliest and most interesting developments in evolution, and none at all into the origin of life.

Once a fossil is formed, it has to survive the endless shifting, folding, heating, and crushing of the earth's crust, processes that completely obliterate most fossils. Then it must be discovered. Buried deeply beneath the earth's surface, most are inaccesible to us. Only when the sediments are raised and explosed by the erosion of wind or rain can they be attacked with the paleontologist's hammer. And there is only a short window of time before these semiexposed fossils are themselves effaced by wind, water, and weather.

Taking into account all of these requirements, it's clear that the fossil record must be incomplete." [2]

Evolution is true.

See comments for sources.

Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
>Reported vote: JayShay// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully refuted Pro 's major points as far as I'm concerned, and also cited plenty of accredited sources.

[*Reason for removal*] Both point allocations are too nebulously explained. The voter has to examine specific arguments made in the debate by both sides in order to come to a sufficient decision on arguments. Also, as both sides cited sources, the voter has to do a lot more to explain why source points should go to Con.
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
The word "evolution" refers to the FACT that organisms have changed (and do change), biologically, over time. Darwin's theory of evolution explains HOW and WHY these biological changes occur. Our understanding of HOW and WHY evolution occurs has changed, advanced, and deepened, since 1859. Biologists continue to study & learn more about how evolution works...uncovering new evidence, etc. An example of this is Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge's theory of "punctuated equilibrium." The theory of evolution HAS BEEN modified in the light of new evidence.

Evolution (as a fact) is ALLOWED to be challenged just like the roundness of the earth is allowed to be challenged. But, ALL of the evidence indicates that the earth is round just like ALL of the evidence indicates that evolution occurs.
Posted by brontoraptor 8 months ago
I can do that.

Do you feel evolution is allowed to be challenged? Whatif there is a noncrestionist type scientific answer that ever confronted evolution in the future? Do you think it would ever be considered or struck down by evolution confirmation biases and philosophies?
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
Maybe you should read a book (by an evolutionary biologist) detailing the evidence for evolution, before you make up your mind about whether it's true or false. It would clear up a lot of your questions, objections, and misconceptions.
Posted by brontoraptor 8 months ago
My skepticism of evolution is not philosophical or theological. I was a skeptic before conversion. I will tell you my big hangups with the theory.

1)We have 580 million years for this evolution to take place. We also have fossils/amber trapped creatures who are said to be 300 million + years old that llok like they look today.

2)Pre Cambrian rabbits and such creature finds that are out of order, so to speak.

3)Philosphical needs for Evolution theory to be true such as Richard Dawkins who makes millions as long as evolution "is deemed true".

4)Ignoring of finds and evidence that "disproves" or "challenges" evolution.

5)Claims by ex people of the field claiming if you dare challenge evolution you are ridiculed and put your career in danger. This reminds me of priests ridiculing an non theist ideas or no denominationsl concepts.

I believe Evolution has become a philosophy with an agenda as opposed to science scrutinized by the scientific method. I personally believe all concepts, theories, and ideas, within reason, should be tolerated or considered or it quits being science.
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
Looking at your forum posts, I can tell you're a Christian. If you're curious about evolution, I recommend reading "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. Ken Miller is a Christian biologist. In this book, he does a great job presenting the evidence for evolution. Also, he explains why accepting evolution does not mean you must reject God, or Christianity. It's 292 pages long.
Posted by squonk 8 months ago
OK, let's take your scenario. We kill all of the non-dark skinned people. Now, only dark skinned people are left. We have a skin change.

Now, out of all our dark-skinned people, some have larger noses. Every once in a while, a dark-skinned person is born with an exceptionally larger-than-average nose. Imagine that (somehow) having a larger nose gives you a survival advantage. Eventually, everyone with a smaller nose dies. Now, we have dark skinned people with larger noses.

Now, imagine that having a HARDER nose gives you a survival advantage, too. Maybe all these dark-skinned people fend off predators by ramming into them with their huge, hard noses, like a rhino.

After a hundred million years of natural selection favouring bigger & harder noses, the noses are so big & hard they don't even resemble the noses we have today. After a hundred million years of evolution, it makes more sense to call the nose a "beak."

I can't think of any reason why natural selection would favour huge, hard noses in human beings. But this is how humans could evolve a "beak" in theory.
Posted by brontoraptor 8 months ago
You discussed natural selection as a part of evolution. I propose to you that if we killed all of the less fit of a species that it would become a fitter species. If we then killed the less smart of the species, it could become a stupid and possibly nonfit species again. But is that evolution? If I killed all of the non dark skinned people on Earth, we'd only have dark skinned people, but we only have a skin change. I see no reason to assume the all dark skinned people on Earth will now evolve into having a tail, a beak, flippers, etc. Do you?
Posted by brontoraptor 8 months ago
Dr. Phil Gingrich on Rodhocetus
No votes have been placed for this debate.