Can any creationist tell me ...

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

To assume light has been travelling through space for millions or billions of years is what I have a problem with. Scientists who are atheists, and many of them are, hasten to this idea because it most likely conflicts with the Bible and they think it a reasonable assumption. I, however, do not think that at all.

So you are a young Earther? Really mate, to suggest that scientists stick to this idea just because it conflicts with the bible is crazy, it is all based on observation and maths, we use the same calculations when sending probes and the like into space. Is this a wind up as @Jose Fly suggests? I'm beginning to wonder. There are YEC arguments "refuting" the speed of light argument, so I'm not sure why it bothers you so much.
On the subject of evolution you may be interested in this, I watched it myself today.

He is a bit snarky about creationists, but if you can get past that it might help to answer some of your questions.

 

[blü 2]

Macroevolution makes no predictions. If it does, please explain what the following creatures will evolve into next:

1. Man
2. Ape
3. Mosquito

Macroevolution isn't a theory.

It's simply a variety of evolution, and evolution, of course, is a fact.

The theory of evolution, which you've never read about in any useful sense, is based on mountains of evidence, which you've never looked at. I repeat my suggestion that you gain comprehension of what you're trying to talk about.

To help get you started, >here's< a link to the Wikipedia article on macroevolution. Enjoy!

 

[sayak83]

That is not predictions. That's the past. Predictions involve the future.

What will apes evolve into? According to macroevolution theory they are evolving as we speak. What are they becoming?

Actually you are wrong. Predictions involve saying something specific about any set of data, past, present or future, before an actual observation is made.

Example: If John did Rob the bank, I predict that he would have scoped it out a week before.

This prediction can be validated by looking at CCTV camera of the bank.

Evolution successfully predicts certain patterns found in modern life forms as well as fossils that are records of past life.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually you are wrong. Predictions involve saying something specific about any set of data, past, present or future, before an actual observation is made.

Example: If John did Rob the bank, I predict that he would have scoped it out a week before.

This prediction can be validated by looking at CCTV camera of the bank.

Evolution successfully predicts certain patterns found in modern life forms as well as fossils that are records of past life.

So what are apes evolving to be? Is their evolution stagnant?

 

[sayak83]

So what are apes evolving to be? Is their evolution stagnant?

I told you evolution predicts patterns in the past and the present, not the future.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, basically, you cannot make predictions based on macroevolution theory. Hmm... Not a very good, viable theory.

Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

 

[DavidFirth]

Tiktaalik roseae: The Search for Tiktaalik

So, what will, say, apes evolve into next? Can't you tell from their DNA? It should be changing right now, according to macroevolution theory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, what will, say, apes evolve into next? Can't you tell from their DNA? It should be changing right now, according to macroevolution theory.

Your question doesn't really make much sense.

Did you read the link? It details the methods scientists use to make predictions about where certain fossils should be found in the fossil record, and how they find them. They predicted where Tiktallik roseae should be found, and then found it exactly where they thought it should have been.

 

[DavidFirth]

Your question doesn't really make much sense.

Did you read the link? It details the methods scientists use to make predictions about where certain fossils should be found in the fossil record, and how they find them. They predicted where Tiktallik roseae should be found, and then found it exactly where they thought it should have been.

No, I didn't read the link. I don't care about Tiktallik roseae, it doesn't move me.

My question makes a world of sense. Just admit you can't answer it and move on.

 

[McBell]

Because the scientific community wont allow there to be a scratch on evolution theory, any such scratches will be rapidly discarded as false.

Not that tired old worn out line of bull **** again...

:eyeroll:

you really need a new song and dance.

 

[McBell]

No, I didn't read the link. I don't care about Tiktallik roseae, it doesn't move me.

My question makes a world of sense. Just admit you can't answer it and move on.

It cannot be answered.
You knew that that before you even asked it.
You have repeatedly flat out admitted you are willfully ignorant of evolution.
So the real question is what game you playing at?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I didn't read the link. I don't care about Tiktallik roseae, it doesn't move me.

The link directly answers your questions about predictions. You should have read it, that is, if you are really looking for answers.

Is this an admission from you that you don't actually care to learn anything and/or correct your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? Why would you want to wander around being misinformed? I don't get it.

My question makes a world of sense. Just admit you can't answer it and move on.

It doesn't really make much sense at all, especially in light of the explanations you've been given about the ways in which evolutionary theory actually does make predictions. Nobody can predict if and when a specific mutation will occur or the exact direction a specific organism will end up changing because there are endless paths it can take. How are we supposed to see things that haven't happened yet?

Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive

 

[sayak83]

Crickets in two islands of Hawaii are rapidly evolving a different wing structure that causes them to become silent (crickets make noise by vibrating wings) and affording better protection from increased predation threat in these islands. The traits emerged early in the 21st century and is becoming more frequent every breeding season. Example of natural selection driven evolution on real time.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)00524-7

One example of evolution in real time delivered.

The map shows Hawaiian islands on which flatwing males are found and the year they were first documented. Although several flatwing males have recently been found on the “Big Island,” Hawaii, the lab population derived from that island was established prior to 2012 and did not contain flatwing males at the time. See also Table S1

 

[DavidFirth]

It cannot be answered.
You knew that that before you even asked it.
You have repeatedly flat out admitted you are willfully ignorant of evolution.
So the real question is what game you playing at?

I'm just showing you how vague and not-so-good your theory is.

 

[DavidFirth]

The link directly answers your questions about predictions. You should have read it, that is, if you are really looking for answers.

Is this an admission from you that you don't actually care to learn anything and/or correct your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? Why would you want to wander around being misinformed? I don't get it.
It doesn't really make much sense at all, especially in light of the explanations you've been given about the ways in which evolutionary theory actually does make predictions. Nobody can predict if and when a specific mutation will occur or the exact direction a specific organism will end up changing because there are endless paths it can take. How are we supposed to see things that haven't happened yet?

Evolution myths: Evolution is not predictive

If it isn't predictive it isn't a good theory.

 

[McBell]

I'm just showing you how vague and not-so-good your theory is.

No, you aren't.
That you think you are is most comical on one hand and most disturbing on the other.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If it isn't predictive it isn't a good theory.

It is predictive. You should start reading posts and links.

 

[Polymath257]

So, what will, say, apes evolve into next? Can't you tell from their DNA? It should be changing right now, according to macroevolution theory.

It changes over the course of generations. It isn't changing in the individuals.

Sheesh.

 

[DavidFirth]

It changes over the course of generations. It isn't changing in the individuals.

Sheesh.

It has to change in the individuals in order to change "over the course of generations."

 

[Polymath257]

It has to change in the individuals in order to change "over the course of generations."

No, it doesn't. Learn how mutations work.