None of whom are active in the relevant fields of biology. A rocket propulsion scientist who dissents from evolution? Say it ain't so!
Have you not heard of this?
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Upvote
0
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.
None of whom are active in the relevant fields of biology. A rocket propulsion scientist who dissents from evolution? Say it ain't so!Have you not heard of this?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.
Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be.
Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.
Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.
The way you and YECs use the term is misleading and not how it is scientifically meant.I'm not confusing anything, they are discrete things.
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.
On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Complex mechanical organisms have been found where the 'gradual change leads to large change' hypothesis completely falls down and so far no solution has been found.
So yes, there are gaping holes in the evidence for macro-evolution,
I suggest you actually read up on them, unless of course you wish to remain wilfully ignorant.
Now, please present the work of "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported, as you claimed!
Stop dodging and present your evidence.
This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd.
You seem to be confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution when I was perfectly clear that I was referring to the evidence for macro-evolution.
And to suggest there is more evidence for this than for example the theory of relativity is quite comical.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time
Just like is being said, macro is just a set of micro.
The difference between both is time. ie: the amount of generations.
The mechanisms are THE EXACT SAME.
Macro is a collection of micro.
Macro is not a mechanism by itself, standing next to micro as a seperate process.
Just like a mile is a collection of inches.
Discussing new discoveries, aspects and elements of TOE =/= "evolution is wrong"Have you suddenly forgot how to use Google? There are plenty, just need to google it.
The dubbed 'Altenberg 16' for example met to discuss the changes that needed to be made to evolutionary theory because the Darwinian natural selection & gradual processes was failing to explain rapid development of multiple species such as in the Cambian explosion.
Every cell nucleus you possess.And the proof that micro adds up to macro is where exactly?
That is simply false.
Chimps have 48, humans have 46.
If we have a common ancestor, that ancestor either had 46 or 48. Seeing as other great apes have 48, we would expect that somewhere in our ancestral bloodline, something happened that reduced ours from 48 to 46.
Uh-huh. Well, if you're such an expert, perhaps you'd like to tell us what said biologists DO think?The idea that life evolved in tiny minute increments is such an outdated view I'm surprised people still use it. Biologists have long dispensed of it because it just flies in the face of the evidence
And the proof that micro adds up to macro is where exactly?
Have you not heard of this?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.
You don't see the presupposition there? If we have a common ancestor
This chromosome example just illustrates the 'evidence' of macro evolution perfectly and how circumstantial it is.
We share such similarities
Have you not heard of this?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.
You are only showing us the limits of your finite mind that can not comprehend how the infinite can act upon the finite. Of course for Christians that have been touched by the God of infinity they know that this is indeed possible. Sense you have never had this experience then you have no testimony to this effect.If your God is "outside of time" then he can play no part in this universe. Because, in this universe, time is required for ANY action, even the act of simply existing. So, bye bye God.
Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates. Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.SCIENCE ACTUALLY WORKS.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?