No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2015, 03:09 PM
No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
I'm really tired of hearing this line of rationalization against evolution, in part because it simply shows the ignorance that people hold on to without studying the entire Theory of evolution so that they understand what exactly is going on.

We don't expect to observe large changes "directly.' Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution. Matt Dillahunty had a brilliant analogy of someone agreeing that a watch went from the 10th minute to the 11th or 12th but could not possibly go to the 20th minute even having observed the micro movements. WTF! really people?
Micro-evolution has been observed and because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, micro-evolution implies macro-evolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism.

Furthermore, as biologists use the term, macro-evolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

Plus, there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

What are some other push-backs you get when discussing evolution with creationists??

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tonechaser77's post
23-06-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Genesis 1 and it's literal interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
23-06-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
ID, the human eye, and attacking radiometric dating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
It's very similar to saying something like...

No one has ever witnessed a human infant turn into a human adult, therefore, human adults must be formed 'as is'.
They would of course argue that an infant doesn't turn into an adult instantly, it takes a few decades for the process. And that's when you get to respond, "Exactly!"

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like LostLocke's post
23-06-2015, 03:49 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
I was trying to explain this to a Pentecostal on a forum once, telling him that there's no specific moment in time when a baby becomes a toddler or a teenager becomes an adult.

I kept asking him to address this but he kept ignoring it every time telling me I'm just angry with god or whatever.

He kept using words like "entropy" and "chaos" and that was basically his main "argument" against evolution.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like undergroundp's post
23-06-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
If someone is actually willing to listen to you then you can explain the issue of sampling a continuum, not to mention the necessary timescales. It's a might big "if".

Speciation has been amply observed, but it's incredibly easy to Lie for Jesus one's way out of that situation, by simple expedient of defining "macro"-evolution as new "kinds", refusing to define "kind" in turn beyond "I know it when I see it", and finally refusing to look at any presented evidence, lest you see things rendering the aforementioned beyond even a creationist's pale of cognitive dissonance.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 04:05 PM
Re: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
If I discuss it, the other person usually brings up monkeys. But then, I live in the south.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Usually anyone who opposes evolution is either unable, or unwilling to understand how it works and isn't worth the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like pablo's post
23-06-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(23-06-2015 03:09 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  What are some other push-backs you get when discussing evolution with creationists??

Wasting of valuable time. Whenever creationists think of Macro Evolution, they think of something like Pokemon or Digimon where something can just evolve into another different thing. All they do is show their ignorance. 99.9% of them probably don't even research it.They just copy paste the same arguments that have been used for years.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
24-06-2015, 04:27 AM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
I was at the library and I came across a book called Fool Me Twice which discusses science and the american political landscape. One thing I found was that while only 45% accept the theory of evolution, when the question was rephrased to ask if it was true that man came from other life forms as described by the theory of evolution, 75% said true. It goes on to conclude that the problem isn't about knowledge, people know the basics about evolution. That isn't the issue.

The issue is that the facts don't matter. It isn't about facts, it is about how one goes about obtaining knowledge. You hear them say that their creationism is just as valid as evolution. They know the facts are not on their side, but it doesn't matter because the facts are not important in this case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: