For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Astrid]

What about the independant scientists whose work they quote in support of their views? Are you going to dismiss them as well?

That is how you deny the inherent dishonesty of evolution news?

Each persons work can be examined on its own, but EN
or AIG etc will only quote mine or use biased / dishonest work
such as from Kurt Wise.
That you have the sophistication to know that is clearly revealed
by your going to EN for your quote mine.

 

[Buzzard3]

That is how you deny the inherent dishonesty of evolution news?

What "inherent dishonesty" might that be?

 

[Astrid]

What "inherent dishonesty" might that be?

Are you really that unsophisticated?
You dont even notice their editorial bias-
or your own?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What one needs to be aware of is that phylogenetic trees presented by Darwinists may contain branches that are inferred, not the actual evidence of fossils. Sometimes the inferred branches are made obvious by the author, but quite often they're not, which results in a misleading diagram.

How so are they misleading? Do tell, oh wise and mighty know it all.

The time span of is the least of the problems the Cambrian explosion poses for Darwinism.

It's kind of not. Again, several million years is a MASSIVE amount of time. If it was only several thousand, it would be a problem. But several million? Please explain how it poses a problem for the theory of evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

Are you really that unsophisticated?
You dont even notice their editorial bias-
or your own?

What "inherent dishonesty"?

 

[Buzzard3]

How so are they misleading? Do tell, oh wise and mighty know it all.

Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.

Do you have such an example of an inferred imaginary branch?

 

[Shemjaza]

Didn't I just explain that? Diagrams of phylogenetic trees are presented , but most of the time they don't inform the reader that some of the branches are inferred - imaginary (based on the assumption of common descent) - and not the evidence of fossils.

Fossil evidence is considerably weaker than genetic evidence.

 

[Buzzard3]

Do you have such an example of an inferred imaginary branch?

I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.

There is no fossil evidence that the various phyla that arose during the Cambrian are linked by evolutionary branches - contrary to phylogenetic-tree diagrams presented in textbooks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.

There is no fossil evidence that the various phyla that arose during the Cambrian are linked by evolutionary branches - contrary to phylogenetic-tree diagrams presented in textbooks.

Well, yes, it's inferred, based on evidence from genetics and also extant species. No-one knows for certain what the very first living organism was, but logic would dictate that it would have been very basic and microbial.

 

[Astrid]

I'll try to find an example, but as a rule, the bottom of the "tree of life" is highly likely to be inferred - the branches that stem from one common ancestor. Such diagrams show how Darwinists imagine it must have been, not the evidence of fossils.

There is no fossil evidence that the various phyla that arose during the Cambrian are linked by evolutionary branches - contrary to phylogenetic-tree diagrams presented in textbooks.

"Linked by evolutionary branches"?

 

[Astrid]

What "inherent dishonesty"?

How about promoting pseudoscience,
does that qualify in your mind?
Again, I have to question how you could possibly
not recognize a disreputable source for what it is.

 

[inquiring mind]

Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'

Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:

Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".​

Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."​

- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.

In other words, no gap is so wide that it can't be jumped in the name of TOE.

 

[Astrid]

In other words, no gap is so wide that it can't be jumped in the name of TOE.

The soul of creationism is making things up

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, yes, it's inferred, based on evidence from genetics and also extant species.

... which in turn is based on the assumption that all organisms share common ancestor.

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.." S.J. Gould, "The Panda's Thumb")

Some diagrams of evolutionary trees show the inferred branches as dotted lines, but most aren't that honest - the inferred branches are shown as solid lines and there is no mention of inferred branches at all.

 

[Buzzard3]

Technically, a bush if just a small tree with more branches than trunk, and that is what we see in biology.

... which would seem to make no difference to my argument at all.

I can't see any fundamental difference between a phylogenic "tree" and a phylogenic "bush": They are both full of inferred branches and both feature the illusion that all life-forms are linked by evolution and share a universal common ancestor.
In other words, they are based on theory, assumption and imagination, not the evidence of fossils.

 

[Buzzard3]

How about promoting pseudoscience,
does that qualify in your mind?
Again, I have to question how you could possibly
not recognize a disreputable source for what it is.

What "pseudoscience" are you referring to?

 

[Astrid]

What "pseudoscience" are you referring to?

You dont know?
Intelligent design is one

 

[Buzzard3]

The individual components of the various different version of sight found in the animal kingdom can absolutely be broken down into functional steps that are consistent with observed mechanisms.

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?

How do you then test your hypothesis?

 

[Hans Blaster]

How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?

How do you then test your hypothesis?

Why are your questions so old and answered.

LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You