A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

a reply to: TechUnique
I can only speak for myself, but even if you could definitively prove evolution wrong, it still wouldn't convince me that Christianity is right. It would only convince me, we have a lot more to learn.

Evolution has much more evidence in its favor than creationism does. What does creationism have in its favor? One chapter in one book. That's it... whereas with evolution, there are hundreds of examples of transitional fossils that demonstrate the traits of what we call evolution. How do you explain us being 96% the same genetically as chimps? If we're in no way related to chimps evolution-wise, then why are we so similar? All animals have their "cousins", where did these similar yet different animals come from? God? I say God uses evolution as his tool.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TechUnique

There is no "macroevolution." There is evolution.

When I've heard people use the term before, I think they are trying to distinguish between specific evolutionary changes and the major stages formed by a collection of changes.

In other words, you start with a dinosaur and end up with a chicken. At what point do we stop calling it a dinosaur and start calling it a chicken. That would be the "macrostep".

At least, that what I think they mean. I agree entirely that it's a false definition, but I can see why people use it to articulate a point.

a reply to: EvillerBob

I agree entirely that it's a false definition, but I can see why people use it to articulate a point.

I guess so.
What point would that be?

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TechUnique

There is no "macroevolution." There is evolution.

When I've heard people use the term before, I think they are trying to distinguish between specific evolutionary changes and the major stages formed by a collection of changes.

In other words, you start with a dinosaur and end up with a chicken. At what point do we stop calling it a dinosaur and start calling it a chicken. That would be the "macrostep".

At least, that what I think they mean. I agree entirely that it's a false definition, but I can see why people use it to articulate a point.

Creationists tend to think there are two types of evolution.

"Microevolution" refers to mutations within a species.

"Macroevolution" refers to one species becoming another species.

I've heard creationists say "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution." What they're basically saying is that they accept the concept of mutation but they reject the notion that "a monkey can give birth to a human."

The whole argument comes from their misunderstanding of the science behind the TOE.

originally posted by: TechUnique
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.

Ok, let's start with this:

Can you please define "macroevolution" as you understand it?

I don't want to make anymore assumptions about you.

a reply to: EvillerBob

i think what the op means by macroevolution is speciation - a dinosaur to a chicken would more appropriately be described as a long walk than a 'macrostep'

to be fair the op is spot on - evolution isn't a fact - it's a theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force

link

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

link

the fact that the op doesn't understand the distinction is indicative to me that they are more interested in being a wiseacre than understanding the subject

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EvillerBob

I agree entirely that it's a false definition, but I can see why people use it to articulate a point.

I guess so.
What point would that be?

My first and best answer would probably earn me a slap from the moderators.

originally posted by: Answer
Creationists tend to think there are two types of evolution.

"Microevolution" refers to mutations within a species.

"Macroevolution" refers to one species becoming another species.

I've heard creationists say "I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution." What they're basically saying is that they accept the concept of mutation but they reject the notion that "a monkey can give birth to a human."

The whole argument comes from their misunderstanding of the science behind the TOE.

Ahh. Thank you for that. I was left trying to guess what people meant when they used the terms as they didn't seem able to define it when asked. I don't think I was too far off, though.

In the UK, schools are prohibited from teaching any "doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution". The idea of creationism can be taught as a religious belief but it can't be taught as scientific fact. As a result, this kind of argument doesn't raise its head very often over here so I'm not fully up to date on the lingo.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

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

By Evolution I mean just that, what you guys call 'Micro evolution' I call adaption. But keep arguing your point by all means. I should have been clearer about what I meant, evidently.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

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

By Evolution I mean just that, what you guys call 'Micro evolution' I call adaption. But keep arguing your point by all means. I should have been clearer about what I meant evidently.

Would you mind answering my question about how you define "macro evolution"??

My posts have gone seemingly unnoticed by you.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

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

By Evolution I mean just that, what you guys call 'Micro evolution' I call adaption. But keep arguing your point by all means. I should have been clearer about what I meant evidently.

Would you mind answering my question about how you define "macro evolution"??

My posts have gone seemingly unnoticed by you.

The ability for something to crawl out of the ocean and eventually turn into man. I mean the notion that homosapiens were once something different but turned into our current form over time. I would have thought I had made that pretty clear in this thread?

a reply to: TechUnique

the real question should be: with regard to the facts of biology is there a theory with more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution?

if yes, what?

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

the real question should be: with regard to the facts of biology is there a theory with more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution?

if yes, what?

Creationism. People hate that idea though. People hate the idea of God. It's quite sad really, especially considering that a lot of Atheists see the real possible for there being a God, they just hate the idea of what that God represents in their eyes.

That's a whole other kettle of fish though and is going off topic.

a reply to: TechUnique

I mean the notion that homosapiens [sic] were once something different but turned into our current form over time.

they weren't something different - they didn't exist

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.

Belief is a key word here, lets break it down.
1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
-accept the statement of (someone) as true.
-have religious faith
-feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think.

Simply put, Macro Evolution is not factual science that should be taught it schools. You can argue with this all you want but if you are 'open minded' as most scientists claim to be, then you will watch the following video which breaks the issue down perfectly and better than I ever could.

I'm only going to respond to sensible comments. I am quite aware of the type of response this thread is going to get. People hate the truth. Especially when they have been living a lie the majority of their life. But know this..

John 8:32:- 'Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'

Peace!

EDIT TO ADD: When I say evolution, I mean MACRO evolution, not 'Micro evolution' which is really just adaption.

You mention the words "proof" and "truth" in your thread, yet you include a verse from a fictional book which completely lacks "proof" or "truth" itself. In fact, it is a book of plagerism having stolen stories from Sumerian and Egyptain origins (among others) while claiming to be the real deal. All the biblical stories and key characters are not unique, and share striking similarities of earlier myths, legends, tall tales, and folklure.

"Truth" and "proof"? Sorry to tell you, but those are two things you wont find from that fictional story book called the bible. And I am a former bible-thumping Christain.

a reply to: Elton

Based on what you have posted, the E-Coli, after 60000 generations, are still E-Coli, Meaning absolutely zero *macro* evolution has been seen.

a reply to: TechUnique

i like the the idea of god - i think it would be fantastic if it turned out to be real

the problem is creationism (as i understand it) does not explain the observed facts of biology

perhaps you should start a thread outlining how it explains the observed facts of biology (if you think it's off topic in this thread)

originally posted by: TechUnique

Creationism. People hate that idea though. People hate the idea of God. It's quite sad really, especially considering that a lot of Atheists see the real possible for there being a God, they just hate the idea of what that God represents in their eyes.

That's a whole other kettle of fish though and is going off topic.

No, it would be entirely on topic. The closest you can be offered to proof is that the theory of evolution is the best and closest fit to explain the evidence found. That means it has to be considered in light of the alternatives - in this case, creationism.

Evolution does nothing to prove or disprove God, it just provides a better explanation than the creation myths of Genesis.

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TechUnique

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

By Evolution I mean just that, what you guys call 'Micro evolution' I call adaption. But keep arguing your point by all means. I should have been clearer about what I meant evidently.

Would you mind answering my question about how you define "macro evolution"??

My posts have gone seemingly unnoticed by you.

The ability for something to crawl out of the ocean and eventually turn into man. I mean the notion that homosapiens were once something different but turned into our current form over time. I would have thought I had made that pretty clear in this thread?

Ok. I'm now clear on that.

So, you believe in micro evolution, which you define as adaptations within a species but you don't believe that those selected mutations can eventually bring forth a new species.

In reality, evolutionary changes are not "adaptation" per se. The "adaptation" is actually brought on by natural selection of mutations. In other words, if a mutation causes a particular bug to blend in better to its environment, that bug will have a better chance of survival and reproduction. Over time, if enough of those mutated bugs survive and reproduce, they become the predominant color... possibly even replacing the original color bug altogether. Obviously, this change occurs over many generations.

I think one of the common misconceptions is that the Theory of Evolution is claiming the well-camouflaged bug was spontaneously born because of some invisible outside influence that changed its color. This is not true at all. What actually happened was that a particular mutation of the bug's DNA helped it to survive longer and reproduce more. There was no magic... just DNA mutations leading to a trait that increased survival. This typically takes millions of years to create a new species.

Now let's scale it up from bugs. There was a "family" of primates that were the first to be primarily bipedal. The fact that they walked on two feet changed a lot about their existence, obviously. There were many more changes to this family of primates over time but eventually, because the smarter individuals in the group were better able to survive and reproduce, the "big brain" genes were spread more than the "dumbass" genes. Even though their brain was about the same size as a chimp's at this time, a breakthrough occurred when they discovered tool use. Around this time, a mutation in their DNA enabled them to use their frontal cortex more effectively. Over the next million years or so, the size of their brain doubled because, again, the smarter folks survived longer than the dumber folks. Thanks to their new smarts, they figured out how to harness fire and use more complex tools. Their use of fire and complex tools changed their lives and made survival much easier. They no longer had to spend all their time finding easy-to-eat foods and avoiding predators. Again, this took MILLIONS of years. A chimp didn't give birth to a human.

That was the evolution from chimp to homo sapiens in a VERY small and over-simplified nutshell. Basically, walking on 2 legs changed everything and led to modern humans.