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

[Astrophile]

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
William Provine

There are many scientists who accept evolution and find it perfectly compatible with their religious faith. There are also churchmen and churchwomen (including the Pope) who also have no difficulty in accepting evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
William Provine

Nonsense. Reading the bible is.

 

[Buzzard3]

Hogwash. If they can explain "micro-evolution" they have explained "macro-evolution".

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

there is only evolution.

The macro-evolutionary transitions in the fossil record are evolution too, but no scientist knows the steps involved in any of those transitions, much less know how those steps were produced ... which means no scientist can claim to know how evolution works.
In short, it impossible to know how evolution works.

Lots of small changes over a period of time will look like a big change. It's amazing how creationists struggle with such a simple concept.

It's amazing how Darwinists are willingly to believe such a simple concept as an explanation for the fossil record and without a shred of proof.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The macro-evolutionary transitions in the fossil record are evolution too, but no scientist knows the steps involved in any of those transitions, much less know how those steps were produced ... which means no scientist can claim to know how evolution works.
In short, it impossible to know how evolution works.

Doubling down when you've been given an explanation only makes you look blinkered and unwilling to try to understand.

It's amazing how Darwinists are willingly to believe such a simple concept as an explanation for the fossil record and without a shred of proof.

There is plenty of evidence. The fact that you don't like or understand it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Shemjaza]

Easy to say but impossible to prove.

The macro-evolutionary transitions in the fossil record are evolution too, but no scientist knows the steps involved in any of those transitions, much less know how those steps were produced ... which means no scientist can claim to know how evolution works.
In short, it impossible to know how evolution works.

It's amazing how Darwinists are willingly to believe such a simple concept as an explanation for the fossil record and without a shred of proof.

Variation within species is called micro-evolution if it goes beyond species then it is macro evolution.

Variation from a common ancestor to a point of no longer being able to reproduce is demonstrable, therefore macro-evolution is demonstrable.

What are you not understanding?

Macro evolution is the same process as micro-evolution just with significant enough changes to require a different species label.

The genetic remnants and fossils show that it happened... evolution explains the process.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's speciation followed by further change... it's trivial to understand.
The existence of ring species demonstrates how easy macro evolution is.

Yep, macro-evolution is so easy to understand that no scientists knows the steps involved in any macro-transition in the fossil, nor what produced those steps.

If Creationists accept that variation can build up in micro-evolution then they need to present a barrier to that build up leading to macro evolution on a longer time scale.

Seems irrelevant to my argument that no one can know how evolution works.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yep, macro-evolution is so easy to understand that no scientists knows the steps involved in any macro-transition in the fossil, nor what produced those steps.

You keep repeating that and it keeps not making sense.

The steps involved are simply the steps demonstrated with micro evolution, that you appear to accept.

It's like saying I can't build a wall because it weighs two tonnes... but it's made of individual carry-able rocks.

A cheetah and a lion have patterns of genetic similarity that demonstrate a common "cat" ancestor and differences that can easily be split along the thousands of generations of small steps.

Seems irrelevant to my argument that no one can know how evolution works.

We absolutely can and lying about it won't make you right.

 

[Buzzard3]

See, I only asked because your arrogant words regarding this topic, such as the claim that scientists don't know about macro-evolution, leads me to believe that you might know more than the world's scientists and biologists.

Although apparently, all it is is just hot bluster from you since all you've done is make claims and not given a single shred of evidenc.

It's a fact that no scientist knows how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record happened - so scientist knows the steps involved, nor what produced any of those steps.
Why are you doubting that fact?

If you know of any scientist who knows the unknowable - how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record happened - the steps involved and what produced those steps, please share.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a fact that no scientist knows how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record happened - so scientist knows the steps involved, nor what produced any of those steps.
Why are you doubting that fact?

If you know of any scientist who knows the unknowable - how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record happened - the steps involved and what produced those steps, please share.

Because it's not a fact, it's only a claim. A claim you keep making without backing it up at all.

But if you want an example of macro-evolution, look at the evolution of whales and other cetaceans. See? Evidence for a claim. Try it next time.

 

[Buzzard3]

macro evolution is simply a collection or summation of micro evolution steps. Indeed, knowing how microevolution works is equivalent to knowing how macro evolution works

Prove it.

And if you know how macro-evolution works, choose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the steps involved in that transition, as well as a description of what caused each of those steps.
Having done that, all you have to do then is prove that your description is factual and not simply a product of your imagination.
Good luck with that.

 

[Job 33:6]

Prove it.

And if you know how macro-evolution works, choose a macro-evolutionary transition from the fossil record and describe all the steps involved in that transition, as well as a description of what caused each of those steps.
Having done that, all you have to do then is prove that your description is factual and not simply a product of your imagination.
Good luck with that.

It's proven by cladistics of genetics matching cladistics of the fossil succession, both in temporal order of fossils and in morphology. It's also proven through a further alignment of these cladistics with biostratigraphic patterns, comparative anatomy of species today, cladistic patterns further matched by atavisms, matched by cladistics in protein studies, further matched by embryology and the nature of which animals are classified etc.

Your response of "prove it", is no more reasonable than asking me to prove that gravity existed in the past, despite us having fossil foot prints. Indeed, there is no other explanation for all of the above, other than evolution as it is viewed in the present day, just as there is no other explanation for prehistoric footprints than the existence of gravity, also as it is viewed in the present day.

And, asking me to describe all the steps (without missing a single one), is like asking me to name every ancestor I've ever had going back for billions of years. But of course, this isn't necessary to prove the theory. No more is it necessary for me to identify all mutations I've had since my great grandfather, my great great grand father and my great great great grandfather. I don't really need to do such a thing to prove that I descended from them.

Your response is also like asking me to prove that there was never a time, ever anywhere in the history of earth, that gravity did not work. All evidence indicates that gravity did historically exist (such as with the presence of fossil trackways made by animals sinking into the ground, and thus, in reality it becomes unreasonable to make such a response of asking someone to prove this idea, given that there is no evidence implying otherwise and given that all evidence indicates that gravity and evolution always existed.

"Prove to me that there was never a molecule anywhere or at any time in earth history that ever defied gravity, that's the only way I'll accept the theory of gravity" ~said no one, ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

The obvious logical issue with this post being that macro evolution is simply a collection or summation of micro evolution steps. Indeed, knowing how microevolution works is equivalent to knowing how macro evolution works, just as knowing how to take one step down the street is equivalent to knowing how to take 5 steps, because of course 5 steps is just a complication of multiple single steps.

Macroevolution says an ape left Boston, took baby steps to Los Angeles, and arrived there a grown man.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because it's not a fact, it's only a claim. A claim you keep making without backing it up at all.

You still don't get it. The only way someone can know how any macro-evolutionary transition in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.
So you're demanding that I provide evidence that no one has made such an observation. Can you see how silly your demand is?

But if you want an example of macro-evolution, look at the evolution of whales and other cetaceans. See? Evidence for a claim. Try it next time.

You seem confused. I don't want just an example and evidence of macro-evolution - I want someone to prove that they know how it happened ... because if they can't prove that they know how it happened, they can't claim to know how evolution works. It's a pretty simple argument.

All you've offered with this link is a theory of whale evolution - a theory is not knowledge or fact.
Besides that, the alleged transitions and lineages in your whale tale cannot be proven to be factual. And where are the explanations of how nature produced the alleged transitions?

... which reminds me of this interesting quote:
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

 

[Job 33:6]

You still don't get it. The only way someone can know how any macro-evolutionary transition in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.
So you're demanding that I provide evidence that no one has made such an observation. Can you see how silly your demand is?

(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

By this logic, we also don't know if dogs evolved from wolves because we have no scientific records of it. But surely you believe that this happened, do you not?

You wouldn't know how any mountains formed because none of us were there to witness it.

Murder crime scenes, also no way of knowing in court, given that no jury had witnessed the event.

No way of knowing if the sun existed 10,000 years ago.

No way of knowing if ice ages ever occurred.

No way of knowing how volcanic island chains had formed.

We could name a million things that we hypothetically wouldn't know due to a lack of direct witness, despite mountains of evidence clearly demonstrating how the past was.

You walk out to a train station and you see two rail cars mangled in pieces and off of the side of the train track, scrunched almost like slinkeys, as if they had run into eachother.

Or perhaps you see a car wrapped around a telephone pole, broken in pieces,

and you reach a conclusion that you have no idea what happened, simply because you weren't there to actively see it happen.

But of course, you use evidence to make an informed determination about history that you weren't present to observe at the time of the event.

And most people could rationally determine that a car drove into a telephone pole, without needing to actually be there to witness the event.

 

[Job 33:6]

By this logic, we also don't know if dogs evolved from wolves because we have no scientific records of it. But surely you believe that this happened, do you not?

You wouldn't know how any mountains formed because none of us were there to witness it.

Murder crime scenes, also no way of knowing in court, given that no jury had witnessed the event.

No way of knowing if the sun existed 10,000 years ago.

No way of knowing if ice ages ever occurred.

No way of knowing how volcanic island chains had formed.

We could name a million things that we hypothetically wouldn't know due to a lack of direct witness, despite mountains of evidence clearly demonstrating how the past was.

You walk out to a train station and you see two rail cars mangled in pieces and off of the side of the train track, scrunched almost like slinkeys, as if they had run into eachother.

Or perhaps you see a car wrapped around a telephone pole, broken in pieces,

and you reach a conclusion that you have no idea what happened, simply because you weren't there to actively see it happen.

View attachment 316460

But of course, you use evidence to make an informed determination about history that you weren't present to observe at the time of the event.

And if you cannot use evidence to make informed determinations about history, then you would effectively be living in a philosophical worldview of not knowing anything about anything regarding who or what you are or where you came from.

I never met my parents, well I guess I must have been born from aliens because I know of no one who witnessed my birth. (I do know my parents, just giving an example of why this "I wasn't there to see it, therefore I don't know what happened" logic is flawed.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You still don't get it. The only way someone can know how any macro-evolutionary transition in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.

Why must they have seen it?

So you're demanding that I provide evidence that no one has made such an observation. Can you see how silly your demand is?

It's your claim that is demonstrably silly.

You seem confused. I don't want just an example and evidence of macro-evolution - I want someone to prove that they know how it happened ... because if they can't prove that they know how it happened, they can't claim to know how evolution works. It's a pretty simple argument.

It's both simple and incorrect.

All you've offered with this link is a theory of whale evolution - a theory is not knowledge or fact.
Besides that, the alleged transitions and lineages in your whale tale cannot be proven to be factual. And where are the explanations of how nature produced the alleged transitions?

... which reminds me of this interesting quote:
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

If you wish to remain ignorant, that's your choice. But you really ought to stop pretending that you understand how science works.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You still don't get it. The only way someone can know how any macro-evolutionary transition in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.
So you're demanding that I provide evidence that no one has made such an observation. Can you see how silly your demand is?

You seem confused. I don't want just an example and evidence of macro-evolution - I want someone to prove that they know how it happened ... because if they can't prove that they know how it happened, they can't claim to know how evolution works. It's a pretty simple argument.

All you've offered with this link is a theory of whale evolution - a theory is not knowledge or fact.
Besides that, the alleged transitions and lineages in your whale tale cannot be proven to be factual. And where are the explanations of how nature produced the alleged transitions?

... which reminds me of this interesting quote:
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
(Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time")

How did I know that all you'd do is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA! Not evidence! Not evidence!"

You don't even know what a theory is in science.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's proven by cladistics of genetics matching cladistics of the fossil succession, both in temporal order of fossils and in morphology. It's also proven through a further alignment of these cladistics with biostratigraphic patterns, comparative anatomy of species today, cladistic patterns further matched by atavisms, matched by cladistics in protein studies, further matched by embryology and the nature of which animals are classified etc.

All those factors are evidence of common ancestry. However, it seems to me that they don't prove that macro-evolution is simply an accumulation of micro-evolutions over time and they don't tell us anything about how nature produced the lineages.
Evidence for evolution doesn't necessarily explain how evolution happened.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

Your response of "prove it", is no more reasonable than asking me to prove that gravity existed in the past, despite us having fossil foot prints. Indeed, there is no other explanation for all of the above, other than evolution as it is viewed in the present day, just as there is no other explanation for prehistoric footprints than the existence of gravity, also as it is viewed in the present day.

And, asking me to describe all the steps (without missing a single one), is like asking me to name every ancestor I've ever had going back for billions of years. But of course, this isn't necessary to prove the theory. No more is it necessary for me to identify all mutations I've had since my great grandfather, my great great grand father and my great great great grandfather. I don't really need to do such a thing to prove that I descended from them.

Your response is also like asking me to prove that there was never a time, ever anywhere in the history of earth, that gravity did not work. All evidence indicates that gravity did historically exist (such as with the presence of fossil trackways made by animals sinking into the ground, and thus, in reality it becomes unreasonable to make such a response of asking someone to prove this idea, given that there is no evidence implying otherwise and given that all evidence indicates that gravity and evolution always existed.

"Prove to me that there was never a molecule anywhere or at any time in earth history that ever defied gravity, that's the only way I'll accept the theory of gravity" ~said no one, ever.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in any of your strawman arguments.