Interesting take on macro evolution

[NikolaeVarius]

There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet. In order for certain necessary changes to have occurred, millions of smaller changes would need to occur at the same time. There is nothing gradual about what evolutionary theorists claim to have occurred. The entire theory is nonsense from the beginning because of what you just said. The only reason theorists claim it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of years is because it hides the fact that there is no evidence of it at all. It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined.

I highly recommend you start reading to learn more about the evolution side. This website answers everything ever possible to question about evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Because after reading this post, I really think you lack knowledge on this subject.

 

[Juddog]

There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet.

Uh what? You're joking here right?

 

[Malak]

I highly recommend you start reading to learn more about the evolution side. This website answers everything ever possible to question about evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Because after reading this post, I really think you lack knowledge on this subject.

No doubt every single person on this forum lacks some knowledge on the subject, but this is not a subject I have not studied. I have been to that site before.

 

[Vette73]

Wawaaaa Its not in the bible so it's not true wawawwaaa

ftfy

 

[Malak]

ftfy

Has absolutely nothing to do with the bible.

 

[Good4Me]

Stolen from Reddit btw...

That's pretty awesome how you all jump on this band wagon.

All we need is a common definition of what each of the colors (names) are and we can easily decide where the color change (numeric representation of color) happens.

There is also the problem that we can clearly see there are many change between blue and red. These intermediate steps what creationists are looking for in nature.

 

[Juddog]

No doubt every single person on this forum lacks some knowledge on the subject, but this is not a subject I have not studied. I have been to that site before.

Double negative.

 

[DrPizza]

There is not now, nor ever will be, any proof of any gradual biological change that can account for the diversity of life on this planet. In order for certain necessary changes to have occurred, millions of smaller changes would need to occur at the same time. There is nothing gradual about what evolutionary theorists claim to have occurred. The entire theory is nonsense from the beginning because of what you just said. The only reason theorists claim it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions or billions, of years is because it hides the fact that there is no evidence of it at all. It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined.

That millions of smaller changes need to occur at the same time has been debunked over and over. Actually, it's an endless process of debunking, because religious zealots whose primary reason to disagree with evolution is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible simple go from organ to organ and animal to animal. "Oh yeah, well then, explain how this function could have developed without this, this, this, and this developing simultaneously." Quite simply, if your reasoning was false, the many super-educated, far brighter than you or me people would have figured out that evolution couldn't have happened by now.

Also, "It neatly tucks away any responsibility of proving the theory in the unrecorded history that can never be examined." seems along the lines of claiming that science has an anti-religion agenda. i.e. it's out to prove that religion is false. Science has no such agenda. It simply looks at the evidence and comes up with the best possible explanation that fits the evidence. If the timeline for these changes didn't fit, evolution would have been discarded as being correct long ago. The only ones who claim that it's a loose end that scientists haven't explained are those who DO have an agenda to get people not to believe in evolution.

 

[DrPizza]

That's pretty awesome how you all jump on this band wagon.

All we need is a common definition of what each of the colors (names) are and we can easily decide where the color change (numeric representation of color) happens.

There is also the problem that we can clearly see there are many change between blue and red. These intermediate steps what creationists are looking for in nature.

EVERY living thing is an intermediate step. (Well, except those things that are dead ends in the tree - i.e. condors.)

 

[Malak]

That millions of smaller changes need to occur at the same time has been debunked over and over. Actually, it's an endless process of debunking, because religious zealots whose primary reason to disagree with evolution is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible simple go from organ to organ and animal to animal.

I learned this from an agnostic biologist who has over 40 years of experience in studying this. There has been no debunking that I have ever seen. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion or the bible. But of course, that's all you can do is insult people without backing your thoughts up. That's all you ever do when you're beliefs are questioned.

 

[Juddog]

I learned this from an agnostic biologist who has over 40 years of experience in studying this. There has been no debunking that I have ever seen. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion or the bible. But of course, that's all you can do is insult people without backing your thoughts up. That's all you ever do when you're beliefs are questioned.

So since you know someone that doesn't know the answer, that means there is no answer and "god did it". 🙄

 

[Malak]

So since you know someone that doesn't know the answer, that means there is no answer and "god did it". 🙄

Again, has nothing to do with religion. Once again you are assuming things without evaluating the reality of the theory. You simply accept it without any serious understanding of science.

 

[Juddog]

Also this latest attack by the religious right against ideas of science which don't meet their approval by calling them "beliefs" is getting a bit ridiculous.

Everytime a religious nut utters that a scientific theory is a belief then I have to laugh out loud. By labeling the opposing idea "belief", it allows them to exert their faith against what has already been proven, set in stone, labeled as "fact", because it reduces all of that research, study, and observation down to a simple idea that can easily be debunked without knowing the process behind that idea.

 

[Juddog]

Again, has nothing to do with religion. Once again you are assuming things without evaluating the reality of the theory. You simply accept it without any serious understanding of science.

It is there you are wrong, and in fact you are the one doing exactly as you claim other people doing - you are assuming, because you "know someone", that you can suddenly toss aside decades of research which have already shown results in the laboratory based upon those very same theories you have claimed to debunk.

Obviously if you have a provable idea, then go ahead and present your findings, otherwise kindly try to educate yourself in order so that you don't make yourself look stupid trying to debate something that you don't understand.

 

[Malak]

Also this latest attack by the religious right against ideas of science which don't meet their approval by calling them "beliefs" is getting a bit ridiculous.

Everytime a religious nut utters that a scientific theory is a belief then I have to laugh out loud. By labeling the opposing idea "belief", it allows them to exert their faith against what has already been proven, set in stone, labeled as "fact", because it reduces all of that research, study, and observation down to a simple idea that can easily be debunked without knowing the process behind that idea.

For the millionth time, religion has nothing to do with it. It is bad science to accept evolutionary theory as truth. The so-called "evidences" for it are observations with many interpretations, not just one. Accepting just one and claiming it is absolutely true is nonsense. It is not proven by the evidences, the theory is an interpretation. Nothing more.

There is no conclusive evidence of the process described by evolutionary theory. You can interpret the evidence in many ways, claim anything you want. If you accept something without any real proof, then you would be the religious nut, not me.

 

[Juddog]

It's that darn pesky thing which keeps haunting the creationists - that darn word, "EVIDENCE".

It's the make it or break it word, which separates bullshit from reality, and as more and more evidence accumulates, the creationists and religionists attempting to fight the idea of evolution look weaker and weaker.

 

[PingSpike]

It's a great response for people who "well, yeah, I believe in micro evolution, but I don't believe in macro evolution."

People say that?

LOL, of course they do.

I read an article the other day that said 40 or 45% of US adults believe Dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time. That's almost half the population! I hope it was just a bad survey sample, but it probably isn't. :/

 

[Malak]

It's that darn pesky thing which keeps haunting the creationists - that darn word, "EVIDENCE".

It's the make it or break it word, which separates bullshit from reality, and as more and more evidence accumulates, the creationists and religionists attempting to fight the idea of evolution look weaker and weaker.

Once again, you point to religion. You always do because you think this is some kind of competition. I have not ever presented an opposing theory. I don't care how the world was created. My issue is that people so blindly accept such theories just like they blindly follow politics. They don't have any real understanding, they simply accept what they are told. If someone opposes it, they are crazy, a religious nut, or don't have any idea what they are saying.

One biologist says evolution is correct, another says it is not. Who do you believe? Why? If you acknowledge the issue rationally you'll see the issue, but so far you haven't done a single thing rationally so I have my doubts that you can do this.

 

[Joemonkey]

For the millionth time, religion has nothing to do with it. It is bad science to accept evolutionary theory as truth. The so-called "evidences" for it are observations with many interpretations, not just one. Accepting just one and claiming it is absolutely true is nonsense. It is not proven by the evidences, the theory is an interpretation. Nothing more.

There is no conclusive evidence of the process described by evolutionary theory. You can interpret the evidence in many ways, claim anything you want. If you accept something without any real proof, then you would be the religious nut, not me.

So do you believe that NO evolution takes place at all?

 

[Juddog]

For the millionth time, religion has nothing to do with it. It is bad science to accept evolutionary theory as truth. The so-called "evidences" for it are observations with many interpretations, not just one. Accepting just one and claiming it is absolutely true is nonsense. It is not proven by the evidences, the theory is an interpretation. Nothing more.

There is no conclusive evidence of the process described by evolutionary theory. You can interpret the evidence in many ways, claim anything you want. If you accept something without any real proof, then you would be the religious nut, not me.

Wow now you have gone off the deep end. Let me explain to you the very basics, which you seem to be misunderstanding.

Let me state it plain and simple for you. Evolution is fact. Just hold that in your mind for a moment. Evolution is fact because it's been observed.

Evolutionary theory is trying to explain why evolution occurs. That is the bare basic minimum to debating evolutionary theory. If you can't even grasp that basic concept, then you are simply not worth debating.

 

[Malak]

Wow now you have gone off the deep end. Let me explain to you the very basics, which you seem to be misunderstanding.

Let me state it plain and simple for you. Evolution is fact. Just hold that in your mind for a moment. Evolution is fact because it's been observed.

Evolutionary theory is trying to explain why evolution occurs. That is the bare basic minimum to debating evolutionary theory. If you can't even grasp that basic concept, then you are simply not worth debating.

There you go jumping into insults and semantics. You can't even acknowledge the irrational nonsense of it all, you go right into attacking others. You are close-minded, unwilling to accept that you could possibly be wrong.

 

[Juddog]

There you go jumping into insults and semantics. You can't even acknowledge the irrational nonsense of it all, you go right into attacking others. You are close-minded, unwilling to accept that you could possibly be wrong.

There is nothing to be right or wrong about here - we're simply debating fact. The fact is that evolution has been observed. PERIOD. End of statement. Until you admit that, there is no more discussion to be had. That's not being close minded, that's just stating reality.

 

[wuliheron]

Wouldn't you know I picked today to forget to bring my spectrometer with me. Sorry dude, but without the right equipment you might as well consult a ouija board or the Bible.

 

[CZroe]

It's flawed in that it doesn't address the actual criticism. The whole argument against macro evolution relates to certain things that would be nearly impossible to micro-evolve because the intermediary forms would be useless or a distinct disadvantage with no incentive to continue in the direction that would ultimately benefit via survival influence.

No one ever implied that the sum of small changes doesn't create a large change between the start and finish. To explain it as being a large change with a coincidentally functional outcome is what people would object to.

 

[zinfamous]

I didn't come from no monkey.

your grandad ain't no monkey, right?

MINE NEITHER!