DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[NoMoreFaith]

Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

Don't be ignorant. You don't understand the terminology being used, and an afternoon on wiki-fucking-pedia won't kill you.

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.

Now, do you understand why your answer is meaningless?

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

You're right, maybe they used sharp pointy teeth to chew seaweed... wouldn't be very good at it.. but who knows eh?

Maybe fish don't swim, but flop along the ground using their fins to inch forward.

Maybe woolly mammoths were aquatic and used their tusks to catch shrimp.. again, not very well suited for the job...

Again, the structure of an animal, the way its teeth curve, the shape, their bone structure showing where they are strong, and weak, combined with knowledge of more modern creatures that we can observe, allows for some reasonable assumptions.

Would you look at a skeleton of a sabre-tooth tiger and assume it ate grass?
Would you ever look at an alligator and think, oh yes, that body shape is most suitable for consuming plankton.

These things are certainly a lot of educated guesswork, but the reasoning in all cases is sound.. by no means claimed as definite, but the bone structures themselves are practically indisputable.