Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[Alceste]

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.

In reality, what is usually called "speciation" is when enough small genetic changes accumulate between two isolated populations of a single parent species, they eventually are no longer able to reproduce with one another. We observe this happening all the time, particularly in species with a short life cycle, like fruit flies.

 

[Sculelos]

We'll I'll say this. Science isn't this giant conspiracy theory that you seem to think it is. They actually care about whats "true". Far more than anyone else in the world probably. They fight every day to discern the truth of this world with evidence based assertions with reason and logic. If there were major discoveries like this then they would be all over the news. In the person who could disprove evolution would be the most famous scientist sconce Einstein.

However when we look at it from the point of view that hoaxes DO exist and that we have to find out whats true. In the past some scientists have even fallen prey to fake fossils. Though after rigorous testing we were able to find out that they are in fact false and discern them from real fossils. When a hoax comes up then we test it and find out its a hoax.

Its also noteworthy that these hoaxes with human remains in photographs with dinosaurs only exist after Photoshop....

Keep in mind finding modern day Trammels and Dinosaurs together or Human Skeletons and Dinosaurs buried together is not as rare as you might think however when this happened almost all the human remains were crushed into small pieces so it might be rather hard to identify it as human. However Mammoths and Dinosaurs have been found buried together multiple times so even if Evolution is true partially it's almost certainly not true in the way mainstream science portrays it as.

A lot of footprints have been found with Dinosaur and Human remains overlapping. This Video is also very informational if you can let down your assumptions about how things might have happened, I think the over-riding fact is people always find what they want to find when they are looking for stuff and people will always tend to ignore inconvenient truths much of the time.

[youtube]XitbLp8L6Bk[/youtube]
101 Scientific Proofs That Dinosaurs Lived With Man - Kent Hovind - YouTube

 

[Shermana]

In reality, what is usually called "speciation" is when enough small genetic changes accumulate between two isolated populations of a single parent species, they eventually are no longer able to reproduce with one another. We observe this happening all the time, particularly in species with a short life cycle, like fruit flies.

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

Attempting to make a point, and actually making a valid point are not the same thing.

 

[Sculelos]

Attempting to make a point, and actually making a valid point are not the same thing.

A small dog might not be able to reproduce with a large dog but they are both dogs and they are still cross compatible.

Wolfs and Dogs might be different but they are still cross compatible.

Zebra's and Horses are different but they are still again, cross compatible.

Lions and Tigers are different but still cross compatible.

However all kinds of Animals that are cross compatible similarly are the same 'Kind' and they most likely came from the same ancestor line.

Humans and Monkeys have never been cross compatible and will never be cross compatible as we are entirely separate kinds.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A small dog might not be able to reproduce with a large dog but they are both dogs and they are still cross compatible.

Wolfs and Dogs might be different but they are still cross compatible.

Zebra's and Horses are different but they are still again, cross compatible.

Lions and Tigers are different but still cross compatible.

However all kinds of Animals that are cross compatible similarly are the same 'Kind' and they most likely came from the same ancestor line.

Humans and Monkeys have never been cross compatible and will never be cross compatible as we are entirely separate kinds.

As I just stated, attempting to make a point, and actually making a valid point are not the same thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

Of course, a dissimilarity can hardly be considered evidence of common origin. You are correct about that.

The evidence of common origin lies elsewhere, as is only to be expected.

 

[Sculelos]

As I just stated, attempting to make a point, and actually making a valid point are not the same thing.

Well the Sum of what I am saying is that just because they "Look" different doesn't mean they are different genetically speaking.

A 8 foot tall black man might not look like a 3 foot tall white midget but to say they are from a different line or species would be false and that is exactly what micro-evolutionist are saying in many of the cases especially regarding Coelacanth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=coe...w&biw=1366&bih=667&sei=U-XuUYC6McOniAL3sIHoAQ

 

[Alceste]

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

Unless you have some mechanism to propose that would interfere with cumulative small changes after a certain amount of morphological deviation, then you aren't actually making a point that I can see.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

No, but shared markers like ERVs and transposons do point to a shared ancestry. And the same goes for humans and apes.

 

[Willamena]

Well the Sum of what I am saying is that just because they "Look" different doesn't mean they are different genetically speaking.

A 8 foot tall black man might not look like a 3 foot tall white midget but to say they are from a different line or species would be false and that is exactly what micro-evolutionist are saying in many of the cases especially regarding Coelacanth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=coe...w&biw=1366&bih=667&sei=U-XuUYC6McOniAL3sIHoAQ

'Species' isn't about how they look, but whether they can mate. A 3 foot tall white midget woman can mate with an 8 foot tall black man.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, however just because they can no longer mate with their "former selves", it's not proof that cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor or CAN have such. That's the point I was making .

If that was the only evidence then you would be right. However there are mountains of other pieces of evidence that supports the theory. I listed quite an extensive bit of information and there is a thread dedicated to amounting links to sources with the evidence. I just chose some I thought would inform you specifically on the topics we've covered.

 

[freethinker44]

[youtube]XitbLp8L6Bk[/youtube]
101 Scientific Proofs That Dinosaurs Lived With Man - Kent Hovind - YouTube

Well there is your problem. You think Kent Hovind is a reliable source.

Seriously though, Kent Hovind? Slap yourself... Hard, and then sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

 

[Ted]

Evolution needs time. Without a lot of time it can't be true. If the moon is drifting away 4 cm a year from the earth, the earth cannot be older than 1.37 billion years. The decay of the earth's magnetic field shows that the earth cannot be older than 10.000 years. If science must be testable, can evolution be called science. Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution needs time. Without a lot of time it can't be true.

Evolution has been researched and documented to occur right now, right here, in our time. It does need time, but it doesn't net a lot of time. For speciation to happen, you need more time for many small mutations to collate into a bigger morphological change, and speciation where the species are incompatible can take longer time depending on geneflow.

If the moon is drifting away 4 cm a year from the earth, the earth cannot be older than 1.37 billion years.

The moon's age isn't an argument for earth's age.

The decay of the earth's magnetic field shows that the earth cannot be older than 10.000 years.

The paleomagnetic record in the oceanic floor is much older than that.

If science must be testable, can evolution be called science.

Lenski's experiment, which is one of the longest running experiments regarding evolution of e-coli has a lot of evidence.

Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

Adaptation through mutation is real and there's a lot of evidence for it.

 

[metis]

Evolution needs time. Without a lot of time it can't be true. If the moon is drifting away 4 cm a year from the earth, the earth cannot be older than 1.37 billion years. The decay of the earth's magnetic field shows that the earth cannot be older than 10.000 years. If science must be testable, can evolution be called science. Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

The scientific evidence points to the fact that Earth was created just under 5 billion years ago.

Also, if you Google "speciation", you'll find more than enough evidence that new species have been and continue to emerge from other species.

Finally, if you are going to cite science, please stick with science and not pseudo-scientific sources.

 

[jonathan180iq]

These threads get to the 'fun stage' faster than any other threads on the forum...

 

[Parsimony]

Evolution needs time. Without a lot of time it can't be true. If the moon is drifting away 4 cm a year from the earth, the earth cannot be older than 1.37 billion years.

Firstly, your math is off. The Moon averages 384,400 kilometers from the Earth. That is 38,440,000,000 centimeters from Earth. 38,440,000,000 centimeters divided by 4 centimeters per year equals 9,610,000,000 years. This is quite a bit more than the Earth's age. Secondly, the rate at which the Moon has been receding from Earth is not a constant: it would have been faster in the past. The Moon would have been at maximum recession speed at its formation with Earth's gravity slowing it down little by little over the millennia.

The decay of the earth's magnetic field shows that the earth cannot be older than 10.000 years.

You are assuming that the magnetic field always gets weaker over time. Geologic evidence has proven this assumption wrong. Rocks can retain a record of the Earth's magnetic field strength and alignment, with such analyses indicating that the field was 20% weaker 6,500 years ago than it is now, and 45% stronger 3,000 years ago than it is now.

If science must be testable, can evolution be called science.

Yes, because it makes testable predictions. Evolutionary theory predicts the sequence of fossils in the geologic record and the kinds of genes that can be (or must be) present in different kinds of organisms. If dog fossils and human fossils had been found alongside trilobite fossils in Cambrian rock, it would have been inconsistent with evolutionary theory. If chimpanzees and humans had no ERVs in common, this would have also been inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

Ring species are an example of speciation that is observable in the present day.

 

[outhouse]

Evolution needs time. Without a lot of time it can't be true. If the moon is drifting away 4 cm a year from the earth, the earth cannot be older than 1.37 billion years. The decay of the earth's magnetic field shows that the earth cannot be older than 10.000 years. If science must be testable, can evolution be called science. Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

Welcome to the forum Ted.

Do you have a single credible source that backs up a word you stated?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only reason why there is a debate concerning micro vs macro evolution: Kansas farmers know that their seeds and pesticides come from scientific research that depends on evolutionary theory.