[quote=xAsunaWolfx]
I typed that message when i was half asleep. still on the go (and half asleep sadly), but to be quick, here is the article i was speaking of. Later on i'll sit down and read the longer portions of which others have stated since, life ;-;.Now that i study it more in depth, it seems....more unbiased than most articles but i guess still could be considered "pro-evolution". I'm curious. how would you interpret this?
[/quote]

Considering it gets the very definition of evolution incorrect, I'd say whether it is biased or not, it is entirely irrelevant. :lol

Evolution does not involve metamorphosis. An example of metamorphosis can be found in butterflies. They start out as caterpillars first, go into a cocoon, and become butterflies. That's metamorphosis.

Evolution is the process by which several small changes over several generations of a species causes biodiversity. In a nutshell, anyway. Fish A becomes Fish B by retaining mutations C, D, E, F, and G, gaining each one over time. More successful variants survive, less successful ones die off.

Evolution also does not attempt to explain the origins of life. That's the theory of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis]Abiogenesis[/url]. That's the basics of it anyway. I'm sure a biologist could give it better justice than I.

EDIT

An example of mutations at work can be found in dogs, all sorts of dogs, originally bred out of wolves by us humans. There's also sheep, where we've bred them to be so docile that they cannot find water without a Shepard guiding them there, even if they can smell it nearby. Then there's our own species, where we've gained about a foot in height on average from our medieval/dark ages ancestors.