DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Mister Agenda]

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).

Thanks for using one color! I'm glad you brought up dogs, because they illustrate a nuance of evolution that many people don't understand: natural selection and body type variation alone don't necessarily result in a new species unable to breed with its ancestors. Genetic drift is usually what tips a new species into being unable to breed with the original. 'Unnatural' selection pressures on dogs have quickly produced varieties that a casual observer would have trouble believing can successfully interbreed with a wolf. It takes tens of thousands of generations of relatively isolated breeding for less visible changes to accumulate enough to make interbreeding impossible. Natural selection can actually work pretty quickly to make an organism significantly different in appearance while still able to interbreed. We do, however, have an interesting experiment that relates: fruit flies bred in isolation for forty years have become unable to interbreed with other fruit flies: although selection pressures conserved their body plan (same kind of cage as fruit flies are normally bred in), genetic drift due to reproductive isolation alone made them a new species, because fruit flied can have many thousands of generations over a span of forty years.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a whale evolving into a bear or a squirrel evolving into a bat (Charles Darwin's claims).

What's the point of saying anything to you if it doesn't stick? You have the bear/whale thing backwards and Darwin wasn't making a prediction.

There is no evidence in the fossils that any animal in existence is the result of macroevolution.

All the evidence we have says every animal in existence is the result of macroevolution, which is merely the accumulation of microevolutionary changes. Do you know of a mechanism that prevents macroevolution from happening? It would probably be a mechanism similar to the one that prevents raindrops from accumulating into ponds and lakes.

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."

It took that long to get from microorganism to the present variety of life. It's based on the fact that strata dated over 3 billion years ago have only the fossils of microorganisms, while later strata illustrate new species appearing over the course of millions of years. If you want to do an experiment in real-time, try isolating fruit flies for 40 years.

And where did the scientists get the 3.5 billion years? They just pulled a number out of one of their hats?

Yes. That's it. They just make these numbers up. They thought no one would ever notice, but you're just too clever for them.

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.

I don't usually call theists dumb: they are usually okay outside their particular brand of theism. However, your brand of theism encompasses so much rejection of scientific evidence that the irony of your assumption that you are capable of intelligently criticizing scientific theories is hard not to laugh out loud at. If you are a Poe, you are overplaying it, I think.