• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Has there been any OBSERVED evidence of macro-evolution?

leoj

Junior Member
Mar 1, 2004
37
0
Visit site
✟22,647.00
Faith
Christian

These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.
 
Upvote 0

kingreaper

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
814
22
✟1,055.00
Faith
Atheist
leoj said:
These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.
Define kind

Define information

Then prove that for common descent to be true evolution of those types is required


Then we'll talk about the evidence
 
Upvote 0

kingreaper

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2004
814
22
✟1,055.00
Faith
Atheist
DJ_Ghost said:
Oh? Read them all already have you?

Ghost
He doesn't have to

A kind is something evolution can't happen outside of

And information is something which can't evolve, whatever that thing may be (i.e. it could be a prediction of the future if necessary)
 
Reactions: Split Rock
Upvote 0

DJ_Ghost

Trad Goth
Mar 27, 2004
2,737
170
54
Durham
Visit site
✟18,686.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
kingreaper said:
He doesn't have to

A kind is something evolution can't happen outside of

And information is something which can't evolve, whatever that thing may be (i.e. it could be a prediction of the future if necessary)

I think we are both highlighting his dishonest methods in different ways.

Ghost
 
Upvote 0

caravelair

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2004
2,107
77
46
✟25,119.00
Faith
Atheist
leoj said:
These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.

what's a 'kind'? and isn't information added by this mutation?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html

and how do you know there is no evidence? have you read through every scientific journal to check? or did you just decide that there was no evidence before you asked, and now you're sticking to it?
 
Upvote 0

Mistermystery

Here's looking at you kid
Apr 19, 2004
4,220
169
✟5,275.00
Faith
Atheist
leoj said:
These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.
Please define the words "kind" and "new information", you are being extremly vague here. Also, do you perhaps have sources to back up your position?
 
Upvote 0

Dal M.

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...
Jan 28, 2004
1,144
177
43
Ohio
✟17,258.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
leoj said:
These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.

You demanded observed instances of macroevolution. You were given a laundry list of speciation events, which by definition are examples of macroevolution in action. Your challenge has been met.

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
leoj said:
These are examples of speciation within a certain 'kind.' There is no evidence of evolution where new information is added.


actually several of the plant examples of speciation involve polypoidy. a clean and convincing addition of information, some are doublings, at least one a quadrupling of entire genome.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Bellman

Guest
leoj, I hope you'll forgive me, but your behaviour in this thread seems less than sincere. Your OP asks if there has been any "observed evidence for macro-evolution." The very next post (by kingreaper) asked you to give the definition of 'macro-evolution' you were using, as there are many.

You then gave the following definition of 'macro-evolution': Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. Straight away, you have answered your own question - no. We have not observed anything that has occured 'over geologic time'. The time scales involved are too large for a young species to have witnessed. But, obviously, you knew this before anyone told you. So I can only assume that you weren't too fussy about the 'geologic time' aspect of it.

Now, apart from the geologic time aspect, a number of posters gave you numerous examples of speciation (which is the usual definition). You responded that they were all examples of evolution 'within kinds', and that no information had been added. However, this was no part of your OP. You were then asked to define both 'kinds' and information - and have not done so.

In sum, you asked for something for which you knew the answer - no. When an answer was given excluding the geologic time concept, you immediately shifted the goalposts (adding the requirement that the 'macro-evolution' be between 'kinds' and add 'information'), yet refuse to even define the new goalposts. It appears your request was less than sincere.

However, if you want to rescue this thread, and truly get valid answers, please give the definitions you are using of 'macroevolution, 'kinds' and 'add information', so that people can give you examples of what you are seeking. If you cannot do this, then I suggest the thread is a complete waste of time, since it appears you don't really want answers.
 
Reactions: gluadys
Upvote 0