Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Random]

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.

Except this never happened. Not in history. It is a lie. It is also biologically impossible for this to have occurred naturally.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Except this never happened. Not in history. It is a lie. It is also biologically impossible for this to have occurred naturally.

Lol... Mmmmk. Apparently the mental health ward has internet access.

 

[Breathe]

 

[tumbleweed41]

Except this never happened. Not in history. It is a lie. It is also biologically impossible for this to have occurred naturally.

Biologist would disagree with you. But what do they know.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Except this never happened. Not in history. It is a lie. It is also biologically impossible for this to have occurred naturally.

Impossible, huh?

 

[LuisDantas]

And in what way do creationists use the word differently than any one else?

Mainly by insisting on that it is an objectively distinct concept instead of just a matter of perception and classification.

I thought the definition of macroevolution was fairly clear- and it isn't that creationists dispute the definition of macroevolution, but rather that they dispute whether it occurs.

They insist that it occurs (or more accurately, that it fails to occur) no matter how many times or how often microevolution occurs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is like saying it's impossible to walk 50 miles because you can only take one step at a time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Except this never happened. Not in history. It is a lie. It is also biologically impossible for this to have occurred naturally.

Although, I do have to admit, the diagram is particularly Eurocentric and lacks many of the recent discoveries in the development of modern humans.

 

[Shermana]

It's amazing that people can see what we have done to diversity within dogs over a few tens of thousands of years of selective breeding and not recognize what that means could happen over a few hundreds of millions.

It's amazing that people can see the differences between Great Danes and Shih Tzu's and somehow think it's remotely comparable to their idea that Bears and Cats have a common ancestor.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's amazing that people can see the differences between Great Danes and Shih Tzu's and somehow think it's remotely comparable to their idea that Bears and Cats have a common ancestor.

I take it that you have no hands-on experience in the applicable disciplines, then?

 

[Shermana]

There is no better evidence against intelligent design than the existence brains capable of intransigent opposition to evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence.

If anything only intelligent design could create beings so gullible as to think there is such "Overwhelming evidence" that isn't interpretable in different ways, to assume that the scientists who disagree must obviously have an agenda to willfully dismiss the conclusions of the provenly Atheist-majority, and to believe that the Atheist-majority have no bias.

Only intelligent design could create so many waves of people who have no actual clue about what the actual "overwhelming evidence" is and only know how to parrot what they've been told by people with less than a 6th grade science education who don't actually understand what the "real scientists" are even saying.

 

[Shermana]

When 'where they are' is a new species, that is macroevolution. It exists.

And thus begins the slippery semantic issue of the "Species problem".

 

[Shermana]

Enough said the rest was false


Why are you even starting up again, you know better.

This is about all the opposition is generally capable of.

 

[Shermana]

I take it that you have no hands-on experience in the applicable disciplines, then?

I take it you have absolutely nothing to actually contribute or discuss of what I've posted, like most others who feel the need to get involved in such a debate?

My, what a pattern we're saying.

Seriously, are you guys capable of anything but drive by ignore-and-smears? Apparently not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I take it you have absolutely nothing to actually contribute or discuss of what I've posted, like most others who feel the need to get involved in such a debate?

My, what a pattern we're saying.

Seriously, are you guys capable of anything but drive by ignore-and-smears? Apparently not.

I'm just wanting to be clear, Shermana. It is not like there is a real controversy at the factual level.

This so-called "controversy" is completely reliant on propaganda to even exist.

 

[idav]

It's amazing that people can see the differences between Great Danes and Shih Tzu's and somehow think it's remotely comparable to their idea that Bears and Cats have a common ancestor.

It's easy to believe we have common ancestors with all organisms cause we are using the same DNA templates. Humans share 50% of DNA with a banana so comparing us to a cow or bear is no issue.

50% of human DNA is the same as a banana

 

[idav]

If anything only intelligent design could create beings so gullible as to think there is such "Overwhelming evidence" that isn't interpretable in different ways, to assume that the scientists who disagree must obviously have an agenda to willfully dismiss the conclusions of the provenly Atheist-majority, and to believe that the Atheist-majority have no bias.

Only intelligent design could create so many waves of people who have no actual clue about what the actual "overwhelming evidence" is and only know how to parrot what they've been told by people with less than a 6th grade science education who don't actually understand what the "real scientists" are even saying.

So your asserting that intelligent design is responsible for unintelligent beings. Sounds like a case against ID if you ask me.

 

[Willamena]

And thus begins the slippery semantic issue of the "Species problem".

Why is species a problem?

 

[Shermana]

So your asserting that intelligent design is responsible for unintelligent beings. Sounds like a case against ID if you ask me.

Nah, you'd think that with total natural selection we'd have far more intelligent, rationale beings for the most part, because the gullible and intellectually deficient and virulent would have been mostly weeded out by now. Especially with all those hundreds of thousands of years of development allegedly involved.

 

[Shermana]

Why is species a problem?

Because, the term is exploited by people who want it to mean something other than what it should mean in regards to the concept of a completely different entity that would authenticate claims of Macro-evolutionary theory. It's another example on how Evolutionists rely on loose wordplay and shady Semantics to bolster what is basically non-evidential claims. And the fact that so few of them even know about this problem yet fling out "observed instances of speciation" as if that somehow proves their claims is further proof that they don't know much science beyond 6th grade level.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In reality, what is usually called "Speciation" is nothing more than minor changes that in no way represent anything more than an Epigenetic change on a small scale.