(April 12, 2013 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Evolution was based on physiological observations--organisms "looked" similar, so some scientists decided there must be some causal relation. Evolution died when scientists discovered that many of the organisms (Darwin's finches, for example) were entirely different species and far apart on the hypothetical Evolutionary tree. But that hasn't stopped Atheistic scientists from pursuing a new version of the theory. They began drawing causal relations from an organism's genes instead. But there remains the biggest presupposition: that similarity implies causality.

Similarity does imply causality, at least at the level we've discovered. We've got the indisputable genetic data, but if you want more, there's the comprehensive fossil record charting the evolutionary lineage of organisms, and the instances of speciation we can observe under laboratory conditions. When you can literally watch evolution happening, your baseless denials kind of fall by the wayside, Undeceived.

You think I haven't researched this? Provide me with some transitional fossil examples and laboratory evidence of macroevolution.

(April 12, 2013 at 12:52 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Evolution was based on physiological observations--organisms "looked" similar, so some scientists decided there must be some causal relation. Evolution died when scientists discovered that many of the organisms (Darwin's finches, for example) were entirely different species and far apart on the hypothetical Evolutionary tree. But that hasn't stopped Atheistic scientists from pursuing a new version of the theory. They began drawing causal relations from an organism's genes instead. But there remains the biggest presupposition: that similarity implies causality.

One for the hall of shame.

That's unfair. People who believe in talking donkeys and a 6,000 year old planet are certainly more qualified than scientists with decades of experience to tell us the truth about life on earth.

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition.

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome.

Added? Things are never added to nor removed from a genome, only changed.

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

Proof that you have no idea what evolution actually is. Nor do you know what natural selection is if you did not know the role random mutations plays in natural selection. Macroevolution is simply a bunch of microevolution.

Why are you attacking Evolution Undeceived? The fact remains that your belief in God is an application of unjustified faith. You might as well literally believe in the Flying Sphaggetti Monster just because.

What's a/f/k?

Ask/Seek/Knock, as in "Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened for you." Supposedly if you do those three things the Holy Spirit will come and put Jesus in your heart.

(April 12, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: It stands that Macroevolution has never been observed-- presupposition.

False. Evolution was not the first theory of its kind, there were previous presuppositions about a lack of evolution that were blown out of the water.

Could you elaborate, please? Hard examples?

(April 12, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Your quote on the difference between micro and macro is misinformed. Macro involves speciation via new information being added to the genome.

Added? Things are never added to nor removed from a genome, only changed.

If that were true, how would a simple slug evolve into an intricately complex mammal? Just google "adding information to genome" and you'll find this to be a scientific fact.

(April 12, 2013 at 6:08 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 5:44 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Whereas microevolution can occur with existing genes by a process of Natural Selection, only random mutations are able to drive macroevolution.

Proof that you have no idea what evolution actually is. Nor do you know what natural selection is if you did not know the role random mutations plays in natural selection. Macroevolution is simply a bunch of microevolution.

Okay, technically microevolution can occur with mutations also. Micro refers to change "below the level of species" while macro refers to change "at or above the level of species." In other words, Macro requires speciation to occur. And while micro can work without mutations, macro must have mutations in order to develop more complex life and allow speciation. I don't know what you're saying about natural selection and mutations. They are quite independent of each other. Natural selection takes the current gene pool and eliminates parts of it. Mutations modify the gene pool, which is grown through gene duplication.

(April 12, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The fact that we have as many fossils as we do have that confirm evolution just goes to show how correct the theory is.

We have a lot of extinct species. Similarity still doesn't imply causality. Supposition. This is a black-and-white issue here. Either you know the fossils are transitional or you don't. Just the fact that Evolution is a 'theory' indicates that it contains some presuppositions. I don't know why you are so up-in-arms about this reality.

(April 12, 2013 at 10:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh man, are you making my job easy here or what? We have transitional forms of those things: dinosaurs to birds- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

And fish to land animals- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

And thanks for making my job easy. I refer to a past thread (feel free to read): https://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-p...+Tiktaalik

You can find explanations for their debunking all over the internet, but the gist is this: The Archaeopteryx has since been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. One year after the Tiktaalik's pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.