A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique
I'M JUST SWIMMING IN ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF MACRO EVOLUTION. ABSOLUTELY SWIMMING IN IT.
Yawn...

Macroevolution is the sum total of microevolutionary changes. It is not a separate category of evolution... that's a common creationist misconception.

If you build a fence by installing the posts, then installing the horizontal supports, then installing the plank boards... each step is microevolution. The macroevolutionary part is that you went from no fence to a completed fence. People who bring up the macroevolution argument are using a false premise that scientists claim the fence spontaneously appeared. Scientists have never claimed anything of the sort.

The TOE doesn't imply that one day a monkey gave birth to a human. This is a common misconception that evolution-deniers use because of their own ignorance of the TOE. Macroevolution is just a more broad way of looking at the concepts of evolution.

You really are swimming in the evidence of macroevolution. It's all around you, every day. YOU are evidence of macroevolution.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

Did you just not want to answer what I had asked you?

Do you hold other beliefs of our origin to the same standards that you are trying to hold evolution to?

Feel free to make a thread asking your arguably off topic and derailing question, and message me and I'll join it. As it stands we are discussing evolution and I don't want this thread derailed with another line of conversation that avoids the original questions in the OP altogether. I don't like it when people answer a question with a question. It's too easy and bares no result on what we are talking about.

I'm sure you'll keep asking the same question though even though it gives absolutely no credence to the theory of Macro evolution. Which is what we are discussing by the way.

Good night anyway, it's late. I'll be back on tomorrow to see this 'PROOF' you guys purport to have.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Grimpachi

Did those lizards change into a different species? LOL.

Seriously guys. You keep showing me evidence of things adapting, that's cool, I'm not denying that. Still waiting for evidence that things can evolve into a different species. Yet you all keep banging the same drum like a bunch of sheep.

(try not to spit out your coffee all over your keyboard)

Yes, I know you want to see speciation. It isn't an everyday occurrence.

I know for a fact this has been explained to you.

I will reiterate though. Speciation takes many small changes over time. Asking for observable speciation is one of the dumbest requests I have ever heard however, the ecoli speciated by definition.

Okay so no-one has ever seen anything of the sort that you are explaining. There is no evidence whatsoever. Yet you're talking to ME as if I'M stupid.

You really are incredible.

Actually, you're being incredibly intellectually dishonest if you claim that no evidence exists. The fossil record is rife with evidence.

Again, the problem lies in the amount of time it takes for these events to occur. You're talking about a loooooong line of adaptations over time that eventually lead to so many differences that the new thing can no longer breed with the old thing and a new species is recognized.

You're looking at it with a short-timeline point of view. That point of view will make it impossible for you to accept evolution.

If you're genuinely interested, here is a link that might help: Click Me

I suppose I should have said we were the same genus. I do understand the difference, though. Thank you.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: GetHyped

Empirical evidence that man changed from one species to another. Yup, still awaiting that 'Empirical' evidence you guys claim you have. Showing something adapting does not prove that something can evolve into a DIFFERENT SPECIES.

Show me evidence of something evolving into a different species and we'll talk. Until then you are just regurgitating something someone told you and giving it wayyy too much credit.

THATS how religion works mate, YOU NAILED IT.

someone told you something once, you took it WAY too seriously, and now you've come here to regurgitate.

i find it hard to believe that you chose those words in that order to make that exact point.


oh ...
THIS religion vs education macro

and maybe THIS religion vs education micro

cheers!

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

Nope, I can't give any examples of observable speciation to support evolution. It is a good thing the theory of evolution never argued that it was observable.

Also, was your science teacher's explanation something like this?

a reply to: TechUnique
So the TL;DR of that is a simple no.

I don't think anyone is saying they have the proof, you are just the one asking for it.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Sure you have heard that once or twice.

a reply to: TechUnique

I'm only going to respond to sensible comments.

Got this far in to your post and thought that's it, had enough.

Seems to me you only want to discuss things that fit in with your take on things....seen so many of them over the years and they ALL end up the same way - lots of bitching and an unwillingness to listen to different opinions and evidence.

Think I'll give it a miss.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: TechUnique

I'm only going to respond to sensible comments.

Got this far in to your post and thought that's it, had enough.

Seems to me you only want to discuss things that fit in with your take on things....seen so many of them over the years and they ALL end up the same way - lots of bitching and an unwillingness to listen to different opinions and evidence.

Think I'll give it a miss.

K. So that was you giving it a miss?
Commenting?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique
So the TL;DR of that is a simple no.

I don't think anyone is saying they have the proof, you are just the one asking for it.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Sure you have heard that once or twice.

So you believe in something without any proof? Maybe you specifically don't believe in Macro evolution, I don't know.

But if everyone who does can admit that there is no evidence to support it as scientific fact, then why do they believe it and treat anyone who doesn't as stupid?

Seems like there's some kind of logic missing somewhere in that train of thought.

a reply to: TechUnique

But if everyone who does can admit that there is no evidence to support it as scientific fact, then why do they believe it and treat anyone who doesn't as stupid?

Cause most critical thinking people don't deal in absolutes.

I would rather think we just haven't found it yet before I would say there is no evidence.
And people much much smarter then me seem to lean towards the idea that there is evidence of it, maybe not empirical or beyond doubt but a hint of it in what we have found over the years of looking.

And how are you not treating every one as stupid in this very thread?

a reply to: TechUnique

There is no "macroevolution." There is evolution.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TechUnique

There is no "macroevolution." There is evolution.

Umm. Okay.
Well I'm glad you were here to clear everything up.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Elton

Does it prove monkey to man evolution? Does it prove that mammals can magically morph into a new species given time? Where is the proof of that?

The ONLY place I have ever heard that evolution states humanity comes from monkeys is in church.

Nobody else claims that. Nobody. Just the church (or people who heard it from the church and thought it was true).

No part of evolutionary science says the we evolved from monkeys. None.

a reply to: Cuervo

With all due respect, your post has already been addressed in this thread.

a reply to: TechUnique

its because evolution is the catch-word for bunch of tiny processes which appear to work together on very long time frames. this THEORY has been put together by a whole lotta people over a decent chunk of time. they did tests, they admit that its a theory but in science talk, theory is a pretty big word.

theory means our best guess about how it is and its already passed the tests we could think of to shoot it down.

the reason that religious types get flack when they decry this theory is that it APPEARS that the objections do not rest on scientific grounds. if you objected within the rules of science, you would likely find a lively debate. thats how science works, youre ALLOWED to shred a theory, you just have to bring the goods.

but rather it appears to science types that the objection to evolution is that the local religious authority has broadcast a position on the idea from his central religious authority. no testing, no public paper trail, no reproduction of the work by independants... FIAT INFORMATION CONTROL.


asking these dedicated people to chuck their research over an ancient text is hard for them to take.

regarding observed speciation...

it is obviously our best guess.. but our observational window for this LONG TERM process is less than 200 years.

but given the time frames involved, and the small changes already observed, its a pretty good theory.

and it does not ever (on its own) deny the existence or participation of a Divine Being. evolution is a description of a collective biological mechanism. it is not a theological concept AT ALL.

a reply to: TechUnique

No it hasn't...
You just stopped saying it and switched to saying macro.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: Cuervo

With all due respect, your post has already been addressed in this thread.

Crap. I knew I should have looked at the page count first. Sorry if I was beating a dead horse.

originally posted by: TechUnique
Would love to know what you guys think of this video. Many people have FLAMED me for saying that Evolution(Macro) is not a 'fact' backed by valid science.

Any scientist with any sense and integrity will agree with my notion whether they believe evolution to be true or not.

Interesting qualifier, as it automatically dismisses any scientist who doesn't agree with your notion. "You must be wrong because you don't agree that I'm right" hardly sounds like an approach with any sense or integrity either.

We teach the theories that best answer the questions we have. Even if the current theory has its flaws, it's still far more realistic than the other... for want of a better word... "alternative".

The process has been observed in practice as mentioned in other posts (which I gather is what you refer to when you say "micro" evolution) and it is reasonable, logical, and consistent to suggest that sufficient "micro" steps can all add up to form a cumulative "macro" step. Until something comes along that provides good reason to re-evaluate that hypothesis, there isn't really any reason to significantly change what is being taught.

No matter how flawed it is, it's still infinitely better than creationism - and even if proven wrong, that in no way provides any validity of any kind to creationism.

So, what do you want people to be taught? We can't say that there is no evidence to support the notion of evolution, because that would be a lie. We can't say that there is no realistic science behind it, because that would be a lie. We can't even say that the idea is illogical, because that would also be a lie. It doesn't really leave many viable options other than "this is what we think happened, it seems to fit with the evidence that we do have, but there are still questions we haven't been able to answer to our satisfaction" - which is pretty much what most decent schools would teach anyway.