Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 10, 2024, 2:17 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
#98
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
(May 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Jovian Wrote: Microevolution is a part of macroevolution, and both are a part of evolution, and Charles Darwin was the first to consolidate all those ideas with natural selection into the scientific theory of evolution. You shouldn't listen to the disinformation campaign that has caricatured macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen overnight. It's taken about 3.5 billion years of evolution for life to get where it is today, and a lot of that time was dominated by single celled organisms. Humans have only been around for a tiny amount of that time.
ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Microevolution is nothing more than adaptation. What it amounts to is variations of the same creature (eg. dogs belong to the wolf family and are an example of "microevolution"). Dog breeders can breed variations of dogs from now until kingdom come, and no matter how different the dogs look from their parents, they will still be dogs (microevolution).

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims). There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution. Telling me that it takes 3.5 billion years for macroevolution to occur is another way of saying: "We've got no proof that it ever happened."

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats? Seriously, I can't understand how atheists can point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in a sky god while they fall for stuff like this. They eliminate an intelligent designer and end up with a theory that is full of holes.

Reply



Messages In This Thread
DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Alter2Ego - April 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Thor - April 16, 2012 at 10:13 am
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Phil - April 13, 2012 at 9:51 pm
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Phil - April 14, 2012 at 5:59 am
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Jaysyn - April 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Thor - April 17, 2012 at 9:59 am
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Thor - April 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific? - by Alter2Ego - May 21, 2012 at 4:08 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Darwin's Voyage on the Beagle, droll dramatization Alex K 2 857 September 17, 2016 at 9:45 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false Rob216 206 37719 November 10, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Darwin Proven Wrong? sswhateverlove 165 22903 September 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  9 Unscientific Excuses to Ignore Evolution. Duke Guilmon 18 8286 June 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Last Post: Ryantology
  Did Darwin get it wrong? Zone 20 4692 September 19, 2013 at 9:58 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth Alter2Ego 190 74858 August 23, 2013 at 6:14 am
Last Post: pocaracas
  Darwin Day KichigaiNeko 2 1506 February 8, 2013 at 8:25 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Lost Darwin Fossils Rediscovered frankiej 5 3348 January 17, 2012 at 10:55 am
Last Post: frankiej
  Darwin and the tree of life. 5thHorseman 13 5443 November 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Last Post: Blam!
  Charles Darwin Program. 5thHorseman 18 6302 September 16, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)