Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[idav]

Nah, you'd think that with total random 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.

Well unfortunately the unintelligent are just as quick to pass there seed as an intelligent person. If fact recent stats say stupidity is spreading faster than intelligence. If humans were designed better we wouldn't even need to be talking about who is less intelligent.

 

[Shermana]

Well unfortunately the unintelligent are just as quick to pass there seed as an intelligent person. If fact recent stats say stupidity is spreading faster than intelligence. If humans were designed better we wouldn't even need to be talking about who is less intelligent.

And that kinda goes with what I'm saying. The fact that stupid people are outbreeding the so-called "intelligent people" is an example of how the whole concept of Natural selection creating the most adaptable forms while the rest die off, is not necessarily proven by any extent. One can even say humans are in fact devolving.

What we have is proof of design of mostly fools for the population.

 

[idav]

And that kinda goes with what I'm saying. The fact that stupid people are outbreeding the so-called "intelligent people" is an example of how the whole concept of Natural selection creating the most adaptable forms while the rest die off, is not necessarily proven by any extent. One can even say humans are in fact devolving.

What we have is proof of design of mostly fools for the population.

This fits evolution very well which is why 99% of species didn't make it on this planet. We keep breeding like this and you can add us to that percentage, and intelligent people are the ones that probably think about that.

 

[Shermana]

This fits evolution very well which is why 99% of species didn't make it on this planet. We keep breeding like this and you can add us to that percentage, and intelligent people are the ones that probably think about that.

Well by evolutionary logic, the most fit should be the ones doing the most breeding.

However, it seems Creationists have a far better time doing that breeding.

Also, we have no way of proving that 99% of the species didn't make it, that's pure conjecture based on circular evolutionary logic.

 

[idav]

Well by evolutionary logic, the most fit should be the ones doing the most breeding.

Evolution sometimes works against a species, it isn't always to our benefit, maybe its to another species benefit.

Also, we have no way of proving that 99% of the species didn't make it, that's pure conjecture based on circular evolutionary logic.

We have fossil evidence and we are still cataloguing the millions of species on this planet that are alive as well as extinct.

 

[Shermana]

Evolution sometimes works against a species, it isn't always to our benefit, maybe its to another species benefit.


We have fossil evidence and we are still cataloguing the millions of species on this planet that are alive as well as extinct.

Like I said, humans are in a state of devolution. And it doesn't help that the "most intelligent" generally absolutely hate to breed it seems. But the concept of "Survival of the fittest" hasn't seem to render any species extinct lately. Though I do wonder how Evolutionists explain the natural upkeep of the Dodo.

I should make a whole thread on what exactly the "Fossil evidence" indicates.

 

[Shermana]

PS, OP, I'm looking forward to your response to the Review on Behe's book and the specific example I posted.

 

[idav]

Like I said, humans are in a state of devolution. And it doesn't help that the "most intelligent" generally absolutely hate to breed it seems. But the concept of "Survival of the fittest" hasn't seem to render any species extinct lately. Though I do wonder how Evolutionists explain the natural upkeep of the Dodo.

I should make a whole thread on what exactly the "Fossil evidence" indicates.

Its just evolution whether you wanna call it good or bad, simply change. Strictly speaking going backwards isn't possible, we only go forward for better or worse.

The fossil evidence alone is enough to convince me assuming the dating methods are giving accurate results and that we have an earth billions of years old.

 

[Shermana]

Its just evolution whether you wanna call it good or bad, simply change. Strictly speaking going backwards isn't possible, we only go forward for better or worse.

The fossil evidence alone is enough to convince me assuming the dating methods are giving accurate results and that we have an earth billions of years old.

Right, so if going backwards isn't possible, devolution shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't that totally contradict what you just said? Humans should be improving and we should have almost an entire population of intelligent, strong beings. But we don't. We're regressing towards stupidity, weakness, laziness, and everything else that's fitting of a species on its way to extinction.


On a side note, is it any wonder why humans are so easily controlled by a tiny minority at the top?

 

[idav]

Right, so if going backwards isn't possible, devolution shouldn't be a problem. Doesn't that totally contradict what you just said? Humans should be improving and we should have almost an entire population of intelligent, strong beings. But we don't. We're regressing towards stupidity, weakness, laziness, and everything else that's fitting of a species on its way to extinction.


On a side note, is it any wonder why humans are so easily controlled by a tiny minority at the top?

You somehow missed the part where I said that evolution is for better or worse. We win some we lose some. We gained intelligence as we lost physical strength as an example. Evolution is change whether the next generation is shorter and dumber or whatever. Your devolution stuff is from assuming Adam and Eve were superior and we just regressed from there, however it is not that simple.

 

[Shermana]

You somehow missed the part where I said that evolution is for better or worse. We win some we lose some. We gained intelligence as we lost physical strength as an example. Evolution is change whether the next generation is shorter and dumber or whatever. Your devolution stuff is from assuming Adam and Eve were superior and we just regressed from there, however it is not that simple.

Well then you missed what I meant by "going backwards" and "getting more stupid". We aren't exactly exchanging any of that lost intelligence in the general gene pool for better physical qualities for the most part.

You yourself admitted that the stupid are doing the most breeding. But I doubt those stupid are generally adapting with better physical qualities. If that's not devolution, what is?

 

[idav]

Well then you missed what I meant by "going backwards" and "getting more stupid". We aren't exactly exchanging any of that lost intelligence in the general gene pool for better physical qualities for the most part.

You yourself admitted that the stupid are doing the most breeding. But I doubt those stupid are generally adapting with better physical qualities. If that's not devolution, what is?

Remember that evolution is no species friend. We may just be making way for the next dominant species. We find ourselves dominant now so we are biased but that is subject to change. If we are in fact getting stupider then the world will weed us out and let some other species in. Also being less than intelligent doesn't mean you will necessarily spread bad genes because humans have so much junk dna as well as dna from mom, dad, grandma and grandpa, some of which may well have the smart genes that could even skip generations. Again it isn't as simple as you try to make it, evolution is change whether said change is good for us or good for some other species.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

You have pretty good career prospects as a comedian... This was quite hilarious... (as if speciation stands in need of further authentication than the current body of evidence- hah!)

 

[Shermana]

You have pretty good career prospects as a comedian... This was quite hilarious... (as if speciation stands in need of further authentication than the current body of evidence- hah!)

By all means, let's hear your take on the "Species problem."

 

[Ouroboros]

By all means, let's hear your take on the "Species problem."

The problem is that the species categorization is a human construct to divide lifeforms into different groups based on arbitrary rules.

There's no natural or specific way in nature to divide the biological diversity into exact groups. The genetic code works the same for every life form. One way of making the separation is to look at sexual reproduction. If two groups of animals can't interbreed, they're different species. But that's only one rule (we, humans, came up with).

Does Macroeconomics exist? It's the result of the complexity and emergence of microeconomics. Many small factors bring about large effects. Microevolution is the small changes, while macroevolution is when a compilation of many "microevolutions" result in a change of species.

And macroevolution can be observed in the fossil record. Horses, whales, humans, and many other species can be traced through the fossil record.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

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.

Let's see, a few tens of thousands of years of breeding results in a twenty plus fold size difference with a significant changes in skeletal proportions and muscle formation, significant coloration and coat differences and behavioral differences including dietary alterations which have effected their denture and digestive systems. As well as providing us the capacity to identify common ancestry.

Yeah... don't see how that might be relevant.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm getting to bed now, I'll address each of your misunderstandings in detail tomorrow.

Here's your bone for now, let's see you debunk it in 5 minutes.

Review Michael Behe Edge of Evolution

Example:

As I haven't had a misunderstanding I look forward to it. And here is a link that explains why Michael Behe's work does not disprove evolution and usage of it against evolution is an interesting talking point but hardly a counter.

Lotus Artificial Life - No Speed Limit For Evolution

Speaking on behalf of such people: but....but they're still dogs! Get back to me when a cat pops out of a dog's vagina!

Thats not evolution. That is sponateous species change that is not covered or claimed by any science.

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

There is no process called macroevolution. That is the key difference. There are not two types of evolution. There is simply evolution. Macroevolution was coined as a way to talk about the eventual large scale changes within populations over vast amounts of small evolutionary changes.

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

If you have evidence to compare against the evidence for evolution and if you actually have convincing evidence I'll believe that evolution is false. However at current there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and its a quick google search away.

Well then you missed what I meant by "going backwards" and "getting more stupid". We aren't exactly exchanging any of that lost intelligence in the general gene pool for better physical qualities for the most part.

You yourself admitted that the stupid are doing the most breeding. But I doubt those stupid are generally adapting with better physical qualities. If that's not devolution, what is?

Devolution is not a thing. It by definition literally cannot happen. Fitness does not mean what you think it means. When you learn what fitness means then please get back to us.

 

[Shermana]

Lotus Artificial Life - No Speed Limit For Evolution

Please quote something from this article that you feel somehow disproves it.

 

[secret2]

Thats not evolution. That is sponateous species change that is not covered or claimed by any science.

Of course it isn't. Sadly, it is widely believed to be.

 

[Sculelos]

Micro-evolution does not exist and can not exist and that is correct.

However Macro evolution could theoretically exist as long as someone (or something) was around to engineer a microchip or virus that could double or triple the dna sequence.

This is actually what we are told happened with the Dinosaurs is the plants engineered a virus that changed birds and reptiles dna to form huge creatures that were hostile to mankind and killed many of them.

Of course Dino's naturally died out over time due to not being able to adapt to Earth's harsher temperature swings when radiation levels increased substantially over time due to changing temperatures.