Macroevolution:

[DogmaHunter]

Oh for crying out loud, Creationists are a different worldview nothing more. This indignation role is hardly justified. The culture wars are over, the Darwinians won and still this endless stream of derision that has nothing to do with science or creation. I think your just bored.

Indeed, "darwinians" have "won".

It's been known for over 2 centuries know that life evolves.
One can only wonder when you peeps will finally catch up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think like , why did these animals stop evolving and all are fully evolved all at the same time as we live right now , shouldn't there be leftovers from animals that evolved still alive ? Or why there are no new species evolving now into for example better human beings ?

Please learn what gradualism is and how it applies to evolution theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In their defense, they probably received a crap education on the subject. If anything it speaks to the need to push for higher standards for science education.

Or severe limits on homeschooling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What application? Your tree shows a common ancestor between chimps and man and the link is not even identified. It is a mysterious creature.

You don't need to be able to identify the common ancestor to infer its existance based on extant DNA samples.

Why not unicorns and munchkins?

Humans and chimps demonstrably exist and have DNA that we can study.

It would appear they do not even know what it was. There is a number substitute instead of a name. The majority of your chart is littered with numbers as opposed to actual names which appear on the right.

A number can be a name like any other.
Would it make you feel better if we just called it "Joe"?

Stars have numbers assigned to them as well, does that mean those stars also don't exist?

You guys don't even know what they are? A host of theoretical and undescribed creatures.

Suppose the parents of X and Y died in a fire and all evidence of them disappeared.
Would it then be "theoretical" to infer based on the DNA of X and Y, that they shared a common ancestor whose identity is unknown?

It's not "undescribed" either. Knowing what a human is and what a chimp is, we can certainly make relevant predictions concerning the traits that common ancestor most likely had. These predictions are also what enables us to recognise it, if it would show up in the fossil record.

Your case is weak. It is unconvincing based mostly on faith.

If your case is based mostly on "faith", then I certainly agree that it is very weak.
Evolution though, being a well-established theory of biology, is anything but faith based...

Like all well-established scientific theories, it is based on very solid evidence. And lots of it.

Fictions are incompatible with science which is a search for truth.

Indeed. Which is why more sophisticated people get their info about the world from 21st century scientific investigation, instead of bronze-age books.

Your tree is a visual of a myth, nothing more

That tree isn't conceptual. It's a representation of very real, independently verifiable, data points from the real world.

If not then make your case for a common ancestor.

The tree is the case.
That you don't (want to) comprehend how this tree is obtained, is the problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well it was not proven for 150 years maybe it's about time to discredit it ?

Nothing stops you from trying.

You're not going to succeed on an internet forum, though.

You'll be required to do the work, just like any other scientist is expected to do.

ps: I'ld advice first actually learning what evolution theory is all about, before engaging in your attempt to discredit it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It says theory not law of evolution , i believe only in proven things .

/facepalm

Theories don't become laws.
Theories explain laws.

It seems it's not just biology you are ignorant off. It's science as a whole.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe in micro evolution , but not macro .

I believe you can take 7 steps, but not 100.

Same logic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What your chart lacks is real world proof, it's an a priori assumption

It's the exact opposite.
The tree visualises real-world relationships between extant creatures based on various independend lines of evidence, which nonetheless all converge on the exact same anwser. This lines are, among others, genetics and comparative anatomy.

and a random connection of mythical evolutionary nodes

There's nothing random about mapping out DNA matches.

We are not talking about evolution, this is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.

No, it's not. It's a conclusion based on evidence.

It seems you are projecting. It's your fundamentalist version of religion that claims to have all the answers before asking the questions....

 

[DogmaHunter]

You need a cause and an effect, it's as simple as that.

Cause: reproduction with modification
Effect: through modification, some will be more succesfull then others and will be more likely to pass on their (modified) genes.

 

[tevans9129]

-Sigh- So I guess you didn't get my point. Too bad.

Not surprising, but still sad.

And you never answered my question but that is not surprising either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure. I've read a lot of evolution stuff. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't put the pieces together and come up with the same conclusions that science does. Special creation makes more sense to me.

There's more involved in rejecting evolution than meets the eye.

Quantum physics doesn't make sense to anyone, including quantum physicists. Nonetheless, it's what it is.

Reality isn't dependend on what you, or others, find sensible.

However, I can only wonder what it is about a process where accumulation of small changes inevitably lead to large changes, one can find so nonsensical...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record.

And the genetic record.
And comparative anatomy.
And geographic distribution of species.
And....

Human origins gets into philosophy, which is not science.

No, it's not.
Human origins is a matter of history and biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is interesting, do you have a graph that shows from the very beginning? I find it interesting that evolution, cosmic or biological, never seem to start at the very beginning, why is that?

For a fullscale view:

https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/0003ti-11699.gif

 

[DogmaHunter]

Could it be like a Ferrari and a Peterbilt? Do they share the same ancestry? Or like a Chevy and a Cadilac that even share some of the same parts? Are they similar but different?

Living things aren't just "similar".
The fall in a hierarchically nested pattern of similarity.

Exactly the kind of pattern that should exist, if life shares ancestry.

No "created" or "designed" product, falls into such a pattern.
Not even productlines from the same manufacturer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not know of any creationist that does not believe in "microevolution", adaptive change. Neither do I know any Bible believing Christian that believes one "kind" has ever evolved into a different "kind".

You should come out more and talk to more people.
The vast majority of christians world-wide, have no problems at all with mainstream biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe you can take 7 steps, but not 100.

Same logic.

No, it isn't.

Evolution says an ape takes 7 steps, but by the time he's taken 100, he's a glorified ape (i.e., a human being).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can anyone provide a link that has an unaltered photograph of a "transitional fossil"? That means one that is not an artistic rendering. There are millions, perhaps billions, of fossils and many photographs of them so out of those numbers should there not be a least a few hundred thousand "transitional fossils"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe you can take 7 steps, but not 100.

Same logic.

It would take trillions of steps. Not enough time for that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

It's called accumulation.
1+1+1+1+1+1+....+1 = big number.

Evolution says an ape takes 7 steps, but by the time he's taken 100, he's a glorified ape (i.e., a human being).

A language + a few alterations is called a "dialect" of the same language.
A language + many alterations is called a "new language".

No latin speaking mother ever raised a spanish speaking child.
Every child ever raised, spoke the same language as the parents that raised it.

Yet, the distant ancestors of those who today speak French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese,... all spoke one language: Latin.

Accumulation of small changes = big changes in the long run.

It's inevitable.

 

[lesliedellow]

You should come out more and talk to more people.
The vast majority of christians world-wide, have no problems at all with mainstream biology.

That's world wide. In the good ol' US of A, less so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, yes.

When you enter medicine school, they make you swear a blood oath, punishable by torment and death if you break it, to keep this mysterious "health knowledge" a secret.

I had a checkup yesterday. My doctor was surprised when I told him I don't drink water after he had commented that I must have been "super hydrated" for my urine test as my urine was so clear (TMI I know). We then reviewed my daily fluid intake which is about 48 oz. comprised of coffee, milk, beer, and a marguarita.

He was also surprised that my lipid panel was so good as I had refused to double my dose of atorvastatin that was arbitrarily imposed on me a year before by another doctor.

He, like other doctors before him, was surprised that I am so healthy for a man of my age. One in particular was so taken that he stared at me speechless for a moment before commenting on my great health.

That said I think many doctors do know the 'secrets' of good health, but aren't in the business of offering it to their patients. And if history is any guide their patients wouldn't accept it anyway.

.