Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Monk Of Reason]

I am someone who has belived for a long long long long long long long long time that humans and chimpanzee's share a common ancestor. In debates with creationists who deny macro evolution they have come up with some very very good points.

Macroevolution does not exist. It is a scientific fact that macroevolution does not exist. Dogs make dogs and cats make cats and no amount of fossils will ever change that.

Thankfully science has never stated that. Microevolution happens and the illusion of macroevolution appears over time. This is a very cearly seen in every form of science that deals with evolution. No single species ever gave birth to another species. In fact the idea of "species" is a truely relative term that is only meant as a marker. The marker that says "This is the general genetic traits that sets apart this specific grouping of animals at this given time". There is no line that is crossed and the gentic lineage transfers from one species to the next. The title of species is just an easy way of assessing where the genetic traits are at a given time.

It is not a religion. It is not a guess. It is a fact that things change over time. It is a fact that life on earth has been around for millions of years. Small genetic changes over these millions and millions of years are all micro evolution (or just simply put...evolution).

Just because someone things this is mind blowing doesn't mean its any less true. People would have crapped their pants to find out how far away the sun really was if we told them back in 1500BC. If something is mind blowing...it means its awesome. It doesn't mean its false. Its an argument from ignorance to assume something is false simply from personal bias.

 

[Shermana]

Microevolution happens and the illusion of macroevolution appears over time

Let me know when we have any actual direct observations which the DNA structure can dramatically change, and not just involve minor adaptation changes. Until then, all we have observed is Epigenetics in action. And there very well may be limits on just how much a base structure can change.

 

[freethinker44]

Let me know when we have any actual direct observations which the DNA structure can dramatically change, and not just involve minor adaptation changes. Until then, all we have observed is Epigenetics in action. And there very well may be limits on just how much a base structure can change.

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was easy enough.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Let me know when we have any actual direct observations which the DNA structure can dramatically change, and not just involve minor adaptation changes. Until then, all we have observed is Epigenetics in action. And there very well may be limits on just how much a base structure can change.

How about the DNA evidence between two differenc species that exists today? What if I told you that only minor changes are EVER made? What if I told you that two minor changes makes ........two changes?

The evidence is there. The fossils exist. The DNA exists. What is your evidence that small changes cannot accumulate? That is actually the claim those against large scale change make. You must provide a reason that DNA cannot accumulate a certain number of changes.

But just to humor you here is a documented case of accumulated micro evolution to the point of it becoming a new species incapable of breeding with its predecessors or cousins.
Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory | Digital Bits Skeptic

 

[Shermana]

Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was easy enough.

I've been over Ring species many times, no dice. Just more epigenetics in action without any dramatic structural changes. Try again. Unless of course you want to explain why a Ring species counts as evidence of a fish being able to eventually grow lungs and feet.

 

[Shermana]

How about the DNA evidence between two differenc species that exists today? What if I told you that only minor changes are EVER made? What if I told you that two minor changes makes ........two changes?

The evidence is there. The fossils exist. The DNA exists. What is your evidence that small changes cannot accumulate? That is actually the claim those against large scale change make. You must provide a reason that DNA cannot accumulate a certain number of changes.

But just to humor you here is a documented case of accumulated micro evolution to the point of it becoming a new species incapable of breeding with its predecessors or cousins.
Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory | Digital Bits Skeptic

The only "Macro-evolution" observed in a laboratory is a stretched definition of what is actually Micro-evolution. Granted, the definition involves no longer being able to mate (for the 96% most part) with the previous form. But that's no proof of the ability to form dramatic structural changes. There is no "fossil evidence", and that is in itself a debate for another thread, of what exactly the "Fossil record" indicates. I can just as easily say the Fossil record indicates nothing but extinct variations of what already existed. What DNA exists exactly? Are you talking about the end result that we're examining?

Trust me, I've been over all these hundreds and hundreds of times. I've yet to see an actual example which demonstrates that the mutations can balance out to form survivable forms that are eventually radically different.

And that's not even getting into the "snags", aka the "gaps" that simply defy explanation. Like the bat wing, which as you can see from the available literature, they actually have no idea how it happened even with extensive examination, though they play it off as if they're somehow figuring something out.

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/22/2/121.full

"Takes flight". Uh huh.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The only "Macro-evolution" observed in a laboratory is a stretched definition of what is actually Micro-evolution. Granted, the definition involves no longer being able to mate (for the 96% most part) with the previous form. But that's no proof of the ability to form dramatic structural changes. There is no "fossil evidence", and that is in itself a debate for another thread, of what exactly the "Fossil record" indicates. I can just as easily say the Fossil record indicates nothing but extinct variations of what already existed. What DNA exists exactly? Are you talking about the end result that we're examining?

Trust me, I've been over all these hundreds and hundreds of times. I've yet to see an actual example which demonstrates that the mutations can balance out to form survivable forms that are eventually radically different.

And that's not even getting into the "snags", aka the "gaps" that simply defy explanation. Like the bat wing, which as you can see from the available literature, they actually have no idea how it happened even with extensive examination, though they play it off as if they're somehow figuring something out.

Understanding of bat wing evolution takes flight

"Takes flight". Uh huh.

Except your wrong? No legitimate scientists have found anything wrong with evolution without first having an overly religious reason to activtly fight against it and prove a pre-concieved point that has zero evidence.

The fossil evidence is there. I mean I can bring you a frog. I can discect a frog. I can show you its habatat. I can let you touch the frog. But if you won't agree that its a frog I don't know what to tell you.

Let me ask you this. What would it take for you to believe in evolution? What evidence is it that your missing that you feel would be able to convince you? What is it about the evidence that you "don't see"? Aside from staying alive for a million years to witness it yourself is there any amount of evidence that would do it for you?



What about these experiments are lacking? Its exactly what evolution states it will happen? are you disapointed that they are still bacteria? Is jumping from one species of bacteria to another a difficult thing to understand? Is it because they are all "microbial kind"? The DNA is radically different. The evolution is there. We are the end results that prove that. What of all the different fossils that are very similar to us but not quite us. However there are no fossils of the same time of "us". then slowly with each new fossil we find that the closer in time we get to our present the more and more similar the fossils get to "us". Until we get to our current form. Does that not seem like evidence to you?


what are these "snags"? Are you talking about irriducably complex?

 

[freethinker44]

I've been over Ring species many times, no dice. Just more epigenetics in action without any dramatic structural changes. Try again. Unless of course you want to explain why a Ring species counts as evidence of a fish being able to eventually grow lungs and feet.

Nope, not "just more epigenetics in action without any dramatic structural changes". It is a living model of the classic "ape to man" evolution diagram.

This is what a ring species demonstrates. Minor adaptations from one species to the next create a new species. The first species is related to the second, which is related to the third, which is related to the fourth, ..., and the last species has been changed enough to be a different species than the first.

If you believe in "microevolution", you believe in "macroevolution" because they are the same process, you are just in complete denial about it.

 

[Shermana]

Nope, not "just more epigenetics in action without any dramatic structural changes". It is a living model of the classic "ape to man" evolution diagram.

This is what a ring species demonstrates. Minor adaptations from one species to the next create a new species. The first species is related to the second, which is related to the third, which is related to the fourth, ..., and the last species has been changed enough to be a different species than the first.

If you believe in "microevolution", you believe in "macroevolution" because they are the same process, you are just in complete denial about it.

Yes I am in complete denial about it because nothing close to it has been proven, just wishful thinking on those who want Epigenetics to be more than what it is. You are under the idea that a model makes a law of nature.

 

[Shermana]

Except your wrong? No legitimate scientists have found anything wrong with evolution without first having an overly religious reason to activtly fight against it and prove a pre-concieved point that has zero evidence.

I'm wrong because....?

You see, there is such thing that these scientists don't talk about much, about how much time it would take, and there's basically a Speed Limit to Evolution. Even if it was possible, it would take many billions of years, not hundreds of millions.

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/there-s-speed-limit-pace-evolution-penn-biologists-say

Aha, we're running into the Appeal to authority snag. This is how it always goes. And then when I bring in the handful of scientists who disagree with the conjecture of the provenly-Atheist majority, they are the ones who have a confirmation bias or are too much of a minority to count, while the provenly-Atheist majority don't for some reason, and their opinion counts because of their majority. Of course, there's no overtly anti-religious reason whatsoever. None. Can't possibly be there.

http://biologos.org/blog/cultural-influences-on-science

I know you'd like to believe that Atheists are perfectly objective, but it's kinda not true. They're just as if not more biased. Many of them have flat out admitted they have a "Naturalism" bias.

The fossil evidence is there. I mean I can bring you a frog. I can discect a frog. I can show you its habatat. I can let you touch the frog. But if you won't agree that its a frog I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think you understand what exactly the issue of "Fossil evidence" is. Sadly, most people pushing the "Evolution" concept have a sore lack of understanding of the actual evidence, let alone science involved and can only repeat mantras about the opinions and conclusions of the evidence without discussing the evidence itself.

Let me ask you this. What would it take for you to believe in evolution?

I already do believe in evolution. Microevolution and epigenetics that is. What would it take? Scientific evidence that dramatic structural changes can occur, how about that? What would it take to prove to you that what's been observed does not in any way remotely indicate Macro-evolution in its fullest sense is possible? (We're not just talking ring species and minor changes to an essentially similar species).

What evidence is it that your missing that you feel would be able to convince you?

How about evidence that it can happen? How about evidence that the DNA is actually capable of radically changing to new forms? Did you even read the Bat Wing article?

What is it about the evidence that you "don't see"?

I don't see the ability to actually change radically except in minor, non-structural changes that basically just allow for new adaptations to the environment. What evidence do you see exactly?

Aside from staying alive for a million years to witness it yourself is there any amount of evidence that would do it for you?

Why don't you name some evidence that you think should be resoundingly objective that any objective person should automatically be inclined to believe, that discredits those naysaying scientists, even if they are in the minority.

What about these experiments are lacking? Its exactly what evolution states it will happen? are you disapointed that they are still bacteria? Is jumping from one species of bacteria to another a difficult thing to understand? Is it because they are all "microbial kind"? The DNA is radically different. The evolution is there. We are the end results that prove that. What of all the different fossils that are very similar to us but not quite us. However there are no fossils of the same time of "us". then slowly with each new fossil we find that the closer in time we get to our present the more and more similar the fossils get to "us". Until we get to our current form. Does that not seem like evidence to you?

What's lacking in the experiment is anything indicating that a radically different structural form can arise.

what are these "snags"? Are you talking about irriducably complex?

That's only part of it. Let me know when they figure out something like the bat wing. Or the arched foot.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571304/

Have you actually read any scientific literature on the matter by chance? Or are you simply parroting what you heard on some Atheist website?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm wrong because....?

You have a sever lack of understanding of evolution. The points that you have provided are simply inccorect by the very basis of science as we know it? Do you want specific examples? I'll jump in on them as I go down this post.

You see, there is such thing that these scientists don't talk about much, about how much time it would take, and there's basically a Speed Limit to Evolution. Even if it was possible, it would take many billions of years, not hundreds of millions.

Penn News | There

I read that article like 3 times. It never stated what you said. Yes there is a speed limit on evolution. No one says otherwise. However it is in the sever minority to assume that evolution is impossible. The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of evolutionary scientists agree that it can and did happen in the approrpate time frame. I mean I can pull some random bogus articles about the earth being the cetner of the unvierse. Sceluos can jump in any time for this just to prove my point.

But can you provide me with a scientific paper that is peer reviewed and passed along with evolutionary biologists that provides a clear indication that evolution at the rate we have stated is impossible? I bet you can't find one. Why? Because then the theory of evolution woulud be ammended to accomidate for it or it would have been thrown out.

Aha, we're running into the Appeal to authority snag. This is how it always goes. And then when I bring in the handful of scientists who disagree with the conjecture of the provenly-Atheist majority, they are the ones who have a confirmation bias or are too much of a minority to count, while the provenly-Atheist majority don't for some reason, and their opinion counts because of their majority. Of course, there's no overtly anti-religious reason whatsoever. None. Can't possibly be there.

Are Scientists Biased by Their Worldviews? | The BioLogos Forum

I hate it when people do that. I only appeal to it when someone claims to know better than 99% of the smartest people on earth whose job it is to figure this stuff out. Its like a patient yelling at a doctor and thinking he knows better and that medicine is ********. And that every doctor out there who believes in medicine is a quack because like five guys who shady medicial degrees for a religious purpose denies medical treatment in favor of praying away internal demons.

Its just a height of arrogance. I try to shake these people (like you) out of this shell of ignorance. I bring into question your second link. Its from a christian science page. All the links I provide are not from "atheist science" but just "science". There is no such thing as atheist science or christian science. This is real science and fake pseudo science. Its not my opinion but the opinion of the scientific community.

What you believe in as well as the things you are learning come from a biased source that wishes to disprove the science that has already been established in order to promote their own religious ideology that the vast majority of religious people across the world (including christians) actually support. Its wrong and false.

I know you'd like to believe that Atheists are perfectly objective, but it's kinda not true. They're just as if not more biased. Many of them have flat out admitted they have a "Naturalism" bias.

Atheists can be objective. They can be biased. But science is not an atheistic stance. Science is science. The pure fact that your already have equated in your head "Atheism" and "science" as interchangable is something that is shooting up red flags for me.

I don't think you understand what exactly the issue of "Fossil evidence" is. Sadly, most people pushing the "Evolution" concept have a sore lack of understanding of the actual evidence, let alone science involved and can only repeat mantras about the opinions and conclusions of the evidence without discussing the evidence itself.

I minored in biology so actually I do understand exactly waht the fossil evidence is. ITs true that a vast majority of the people who know evolution to be true don't know the ins and outs of every scientific theory. Though they do have a pretty good understanding of the basic evidence they provide for you in the classroom.

Would you like anywhere between 100 and 500 links to specific instances of evidence and how it corrolates perfectly with evolution? I have a feeling that will be a huge waste of my time as its already in your head that its wrong and no amount of evidence will be enough because of your pre-concived bias created by theisticly driven people trying to poison the minds of young ones in order to prevent them from udnerstanding the truth that runs counter to their strict theological ideology.

I can bring you specific evidence and post it here. But only if you can give it an objective look.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I already do believe in evolution. Microevolution and epigenetics that is. What would it take? Scientific evidence that dramatic structural changes can occur, how about that? What would it take to prove to you that what's been observed does not in any way remotely indicate Macro-evolution in its fullest sense is possible? (We're not just talking ring species and minor changes to an essentially similar species).

This already shows that you don't know about either. There is no such thing as microevoultion or macroevolution. There is only accumulated microevolution. Epigentics actually plays a fundamental role in several things but it does NOT change your genetics. It changes the traits show but it cannot hide the DNA that we can look at and map. So this fails immediatly and showcases your ignorance of the topic.

But again I can actually provide evidence for everything on evolution that you have a problem with. But I am not going to waste a large amount of time just to have you say "nope not in the bible therefore wrong".

How about evidence that it can happen? How about evidence that the DNA is actually capable of radically changing to new forms? Did you even read the Bat Wing article?

Yes. The science mentioned for the most part was legitimate. However they are wrong to assume that 2% of a wing is not useful. It is and we know how they developed in several other animals. It is usually somewhat different each time but along the same lines. An example of a creature today that is "almost flying" or has an incomplete wing that does not have acess to flight but yet is on its way is the flying squirril. Its very possible that in a few hundred thousand years it will have more wing like structures. Within a few million years if any of its decendants are still alive and passing on genes its possible that they could fly better than the bats.

The idea of irriducible complexity is an argument from ignorance without scientific basis.

I don't see the ability to actually change radically except in minor, non-structural changes that basically just allow for new adaptations to the environment. What evidence do you see exactly?

Technically unless you did the research you don't "see" anything. what happens in the scientific community is that someone does research on something and then brings their findings to the drawing board. They work out a theory as to why and then re-write that theory over and over till they think they got it. They then present that information for peer review. If no one can find anything wrong with a falcifiable theoretical claim then it is usually introduced to the scientific community. As the theory shifts around for a long time and it is challenged over and over and continues to be the best explination based on the evidence that is reviewed by people who have studied for years to be experts in their respective fields they then revear it as scientific fact. Its still a theory but its fact.

But let me ask you something. You understand that humans all came from africa yes? Do you understand that? Or is that something you refute?

Why don't you name some evidence that you think should be resoundingly objective that any objective person should automatically be inclined to believe, that discredits those naysaying scientists, even if they are in the minority.

less than 1% is less than a minority. In fact nearly a unanimous amount of these tiny groups of scientsits are all religiously motivated and not motivated by fact and scientific evidence. Isn't it just a little bit strange that only the uber religious that have been told that evolution is false before they even went to school are the only ones that deny it? Why is it that we don't see secular scientists going in groves to these new discoveries that deny evolution?

Its because those theories are wrong or at least don't hold weight to challenge the evidence for evolution.

DNA is generally a really really really really really really really really really really good one. However you must have a base understanding of how DNA works to get it. The fossils paint a clear picture but you don't seem to believe me. The idea that microevolution exists and yet stops somewhere does not make sense. IT only makes sense that it would continue to happen unless there is a viable reason for it not too. All of these things are the evidences for it.

What's lacking in the experiment is anything indicating that a radically different structural form can arise.

Except that they did. They fucntionally changed so much that they couldn't even reproduce with each other. That is a fucntional change. Though I am curious. What are examples of structural change between two bacteria?

That's only part of it. Let me know when they figure out something like the bat wing. Or the arched foot.

Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion

Have you actually read any scientific literature on the matter by chance? Or are you simply parroting what you heard on some Atheist website?

I actually have. I'll link you when I get home and i'm off of my tablet. I have numerous videos I would like for you to watch. And they aren't "atheist websights". Its SCEINCE websights.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes I am in complete denial about it because nothing close to it has been proven, just wishful thinking on those who want Epigenetics to be more than what it is. You are under the idea that a model makes a law of nature.

Just nitpicking but there is no such thing as proof in science. There is only evidence.

Evolution is a theory not a law. There are strict differences in what a law is and what a theory is. One cannot become the other just also to clarify.

 

[Shermana]

Can anyone point to anything specific in that that actually addresses what I said or proves anything wrong in my points? All I see is generalities and unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Can anyone point to anything specific in that that actually addresses what I said or proves anything wrong in my points? All I see is generalities and unsubstantiated accusations.

What point specifically? do you want specific evidence? or do you want a very specific evidence to counter a specific point? Because we provided you already with two different studies that proved you wrong and you laughed it off.

And yes I do accuse but only because I care.

 

[Shermana]

What point specifically? do you want specific evidence? or do you want a very specific evidence to counter a specific point? Because we provided you already with two different studies that proved you wrong and you laughed it off.

And yes I do accuse but only because I care.

You provided me with 2 studies? That proved me wrong?

Really? I went back and looked over the responses, didn't see any links but a Wikipedia article on Ring Species. Did I miss something?

Meanwhile, you didn't even comment on any of the specifics in my articles except "laugh them off" and tell me that I'm not talking about what they actually say, and then brush off any accusations of bias on non-religious scientists while doubling down on the accusations of bias on dissenting scientists, repeating the usual canard of "There's no such thing as Microevolution" (Even though scientific books use those terms) without getting into any specifics.

 

[Shermana]

I love when people tell me there's no such thing as Microevolution or Macroevolution. It really tells me how little they actually know. Go tell that to these authors.

Microevolution: Braja M. Das: 9780391026414: Amazon.com: Books

Microevolution of Fishes: Evolutionary Aspects of Phenetic Diversity: M. V. Mina, A. V. Yablokov: 9788170870609: Amazon.com: Books

Plant Microevolution and Conservation in Human-influenced Ecosystems: David Briggs: 9780521521543: Amazon.com: Books

Human Variation and Human Microevolution: Jane H. Underwood: 9780134475738: Amazon.com: Books

Macroevolution: Pattern and Process: Professor Steven M. Stanley: 9780801857355: Amazon.com: Books

Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Laws of Life Symposia): Elisabeth S. Vrba, Niles Eldredge: 9781891276491: Amazon.com: Books

That's just a few.

Damn I get sick of hearing this ignorant drivel that there's no such thing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You provided me with 2 studies? That proved me wrong?

Really? I went back and looked over the responses, didn't see any links but a Wikipedia article on Ring Species. Did I miss something?

Meanwhile, you didn't even comment on any of the specifics in my articles except "laugh them off" and tell me that I'm not talking about what they actually say, and then brush off any accusations of bias on non-religious scientists while doubling down on the accusations of bias on dissenting scientists, repeating the usual canard of "There's no such thing as Microevolution" (Even though scientific books use those terms) without getting into any specifics.

What about the link to a page that let out numerous studies on the exact thing. And both studies (yes the wiki included) actually does counter your point. You have not provided any counter to them. Thats what I call "laughing it off".

I countered each and everyone one of your links.

The first about the bat article did not provide any evidence that it was impossible. I read it several times.

I also read the article about the speed limit of evolution. Also did not have any information in that article to support your claims. Read the links you give me before assuming that they actually provide support for your argument.

I also pointed out YOUR bias and asked why you assumed that the science that I am bringing up is "atheist science". There is no atheist science. There is just science. I show a large amount of bias. My bias is towards legitimate science. I can poke holes and show you how wrong the creationist pseudo science all day long. If there is legit science to be shown then I'll concede my point to you.

I love when people tell me there's no such thing as Microevolution or Macroevolution. It really tells me how little they actually know. Go tell that to these authors.

Microevolution: Braja M. Das: 9780391026414: Amazon.com: Books

Microevolution of Fishes: Evolutionary Aspects of Phenetic Diversity: M. V. Mina, A. V. Yablokov: 9788170870609: Amazon.com: Books

Plant Microevolution and Conservation in Human-influenced Ecosystems: David Briggs: 9780521521543: Amazon.com: Books

Human Variation and Human Microevolution: Jane H. Underwood: 9780134475738: Amazon.com: Books

Macroevolution: Pattern and Process: Professor Steven M. Stanley: 9780801857355: Amazon.com: Books

Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency: Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould (Laws of Life Symposia): Elisabeth S. Vrba, Niles Eldredge: 9781891276491: Amazon.com: Books

That's just a few.

Damn I get sick of hearing this ignorant drivel that there's no such thing.

How many of those books have you read? Do you even get that all of them are actually for my point? Micro evolution and macro evolution do not exist. There is only evolution. These books have used these not as scientific terms (if they have then they are dead wrong) but rather to specify to what degree of change they are studying. Creationists have created the words micro and macro specifically when they found out "oops evolution is correct AND observable". When that happened they retreated back and came up with two new words of "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

Do the words exist? yes. Does it exist as a scientific concept created by scientists? No.

 

[Shermana]

What about the link to a page that let out numerous studies on the exact thing. And both studies (yes the wiki included) actually does counter your point. You have not provided any counter to them. Thats what I call "laughing it off".

Are you talking about the supposed "lists of observed macro-evolution"? That's the issue in contention, I said those are actually just Micro-evolution that in no way proves the process can result in radically different forms. What's there to counter exactly? Those examples do not demonstrate anything close to being able to prove dramatic structural changes. They prove that the use of the words "Macro-evolution" and "Speciation" involve slippery semantics.

I countered each and everyone one of your links.

If you want to believe you somehow countered my links, go for it.

The first about the bat article did not provide any evidence that it was impossible. I read it several times.

I didn't say it proved it was impossible. I said they can't figure it out and they try to cover it up with things like "Our understanding is taking flight". You can't even read what I'm saying correctly.

I also read the article about the speed limit of evolution. Also did not have any information in that article to support your claims

.

I was making two different claims there. The first claim was about the fact that there's simply not enough time in the current model. This is a rarely touched on concept, and probably for a reason: There would need to be billions and billions of years, not just hundreds of millions, especially with a complete start-over after the mass-extinction events. The second claim, which the article is about, is that adaptation levels drop off after about 40,000 generations of bacteria.

Read the links you give me before assuming that they actually provide support for your argument.

If you read it, you'd understand what the "Speed Limit" is and how it absolutely cripples the current evolutionary models. Why don't you tell us your take on it.

I also pointed out YOUR bias and asked why you assumed that the science that I am bringing up is "atheist science". There is no atheist science. There is just science. I show a large amount of bias. My bias is towards legitimate science. I can poke holes and show you how wrong the creationist pseudo science all day long. If there is legit science to be shown then I'll concede my point to you.

I have bias towards what's actually scientific too! The difference is, your bias is based on conclusions that don't exactly make due with the evidence entails. Perhaps we should make a thread about Creationist Science claims and how exactly they are wrong, specifically, without just making a dive for the source itself.

How many of those books have you read?

None. Have you? Apparently your argument is that they're just using those words to "specify what degree of change they are studying"....WHILE SAYING THAT THE TERM DOES NOT EXIST IN SCIENTIFIC USAGE!!!

Do you even get that all of them are actually for my point? Micro evolution and macro evolution do not exist. There is only evolution. These books have used these not as scientific terms (if they have then they are dead wrong) but rather to specify to what degree of change they are studying.

Oh really? Have you read these books to be able to say that they don't actually agree with their use as scientific terms and that they are "dead wrong"? Who are you to say they are "dead wrong"? A lot of assertions you got there.

Creationists have created the words micro and macro specifically when they found out "oops evolution is correct AND observable". When that happened they retreated back and came up with two new words of "microevolution" and "macroevolution".

Apparently these people are just using terms Creationists created? Get outta here. Seriously, what an excuse. By all means, prove your claim that Creationists created these terms and that these books authors are "Flat out wrong".

Do the words exist? yes. Does it exist as a scientific concept created by scientists? No.

Prove that they don't exist as a concept that Scientists go by.

 

[Shermana]

Busting another Darwinist Myth: Have ID Proponents Invented Terms like "Microevolution" and "Macroevolution"? - Evolution News & Views

Here, read this article, and without simply attacking the source, tell me what's wrong with it and disprove it with actual substantial links.

Indeed, textbooks commonly teach this terminology, including two of the textbooks I used in college when learning about evolutionary biology.

The glossary of my college introductory biology text, Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, a text I used for an upper-division evolutionary biology course, states, "In Chapters 2h3 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). Similarly, these textbooks respectively define "microevolution" as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations" and "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species." Clearly Darwin-skeptics did not invent these terms.

It is indeed a "long debunked myth", just like most other things that the Atheist-majority "scientists" try to push as a conclusion from the evidence.