DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Jovian]

[popeyespappy]

you have a very wrong perception of how evolution works just a fuckin' bout everything.

FIFY

[Anomalocaris]

All the oxygen in the air we breath is a direct result of evolution. People who deny evolution shouldn't breathe.

Do the brains that deny evolution ever use oxygen?

[Minimalist]

[Reforged]

[Anomalocaris]

Dear ALTER2EGO,
We find your choice to color every word you type pointless, irritating and childish.

If you have no point, yet can't stand the fact that you aren't getting your point across, you resort to colors.

[Reforged]

Dear ALTER2EGO,
We find your choice to color every word you type pointless, irritating and childish.

If you have no point, yet can't stand the fact that you aren't getting your point across, you resort to colors.

My point exactly.

[Alter2Ego]

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.

[Hovik]

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.

I'm getting the very strong indication that you've never read a book on the topic that wasn't written by a guy with "Rev." before his name.

Do some basic fucking research, and you'll see exactly how stupid you look right now.

[libalchris]

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. [/color]

Are you dense? Macroevolution is nothing more than adaptation! It's just built up over a long period of time! For the love of the flying spaghetti monster how is it so hard to believe that if you can lay one brick down, you can lay many down and build a wall?

Where did the scientists get 3.5 billion years? Pretty simple actually. It's called radiometric dating. Despite your delusions about how the fossil record looks, it really is very orderly, and only certain kinds of fossils exist in certain strata (Rabbits are never found in the precambrian) Basically, you look what area the first life forms occur in the fossil record, date that level of strata with methods of radiometric dating, and you get a date.

You seem to act as though because we can't see macroevolution happen before our own very eyes, it can't happen (that's called a fallacy.) We can't see it before our eyes because it takes a long time! You don't deny that dogs came from wolves simply because you've never seen it happen do you?

Let me simplify this discussion: What evidence would it take to convince you that macroevolution can occur?