you beg the question as to what evidence they are for. You must present your entire argument at the time of submittal.
You are denying that there are observations. How are fossils not observations?
Upvote
0
you beg the question as to what evidence they are for. You must present your entire argument at the time of submittal.
what evidence? not trying to be rude
but I honestly missed it or something. please be kind enough to repost.
like I said they need to document common ancestry.
I just want to be fair here, cabvet. You can change the bars as much as you like, but remember we need closure on our old topic. Are you willing to accept defeat, and be intellectually honest here? No evidence of macro evolution exists to date amongst vertebrates? If so we can move on.
see my last post, and also this one:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7417298/#post66007155
thanks for the comment.
the only qualifications for macroevolution (per the definition) is to have a hybrid link two genras . . .
as this is what would be required to share common ancestry on a macro level.
I am going with the definition of macro evoluton as provided by current universities,
really what you are doing here is explaining something that doesn't exist. I, out of the goodness of my heart am giving a qualification or example for you to meet, just so you can see if your theory is valid.
like I said they need to document common ancestry.
No, you aren't. No definition says that macroevolution is the production of a hybrid between two genera.
I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level.
Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry.
I have to go out for a bit, I won't address all of your posts but this one for now. I defined macro evolution as per current university trends. Namely: evolution above the species level. Genus is above the species level, do you agree? Do you agree on the U.C. Berkleys definition of macro evolution? Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between to two already proving common ancestry. But if you don't want a proven ancestry inherent in the example you can take as many steps as needed, with as many years as needed to show two organisms of different genra share common ancestry. Does that answer your questions? Thanks for the comment.
Being able to form hybrids is suggestive of common ancestry, but isn't necessary for it to be true.
So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?
I simply am asking for a hybrid or any transition to prove your point,
now you can attack hybrids, and transitions and the definition of macro evolution, but you still come up short. With no evidence.
so here you have it folks, a confession that macro evolution in fact is not, and cannot be observed, nor have observations.
And since observation is a prerequisite to science (as per the definitions from schools and colleges I provided),
Then use that definition. Using that definition, the production of two non-interbreeding populations from a single population is macroevolution. That is what the definition is.
That is not what I said.
I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.
You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.
We have the observations.
So why would you require an observation as proof of macroevolution when macroevolution would not produce that observation?
__________________
Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.
That is not what I said.
I said that if macroevolution is true then two distantly related species should NOT produce a hybrid.
You might as well ask me to prove gravity by showing you an anvil that floats in mid air.
Fossils are observations. Genome sequences are observations. Homologous features in different species are observations. The distribution of species across the globe are observations.
We have the observations.