Evidence Macroevolution Does Not Exist

[David M]

Evolution needs time.

Physics and Geology have established that there has been lots of 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.

At that rate then 1.37 billion years ago the distance between the earth and moon would have been:

(384,400 x 1000 x 100) - (3.82 x 1,370,000,000) = 32,960,000,000 cm (or 329,600km aka 85.7% of its current distance).

So how does the moon being a mere 15% closer peg the age of the earth as no older than 1.37billion years?

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

No it doesn't. This is an old, long discredited, creationist lie that you have fallen for.
CD701: Decay of Earth's magnetic field

If science must be testable, can evolution be called science. Adaption yes but no single evidence of a change from one specie into another.

Science is testable, evolution is testable and speciation is an OBSERVED FACT.
Observed Instances of Speciation

Perhaps you should ask why your sources are lying to you.

 

[Looncall]

And this is exactly why nobody will ever publicize humans and dinosaur remains found together. The proof is out there yet if it is publicized it will always be criticized as a hoax.

In short humans believe what we want to believe even if we find contradicting evidence the natural reaction is to simply ignore it, say it's a hoax or try to explain it in a way that merges with our other views.

Examine for yourself but keep in mind this doesn't prove anything but just provides visual data.

Dinosaur Human Skeleton Hoax - Google Search

I notice that you failed to provide a citation to back up your claim that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Please do so, or admit you are repeating idiotic nonsense.

 

[Vishvavajra]

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 .

Your error is in treating "cat," "dog," and "bear" as essential categories rather than descriptive ones. There is no essential "bearness" that makes bears bears. Their bearness is at best an epiphenomenon of the forming of individual proteins according to their DNA. Those individual proteins are subject to variation. Given that, there would have to be a supernatural force preventing overall variation beyond a certain point. Nobody has managed to demonstrate such a supernatural force, thus nobody has managed to demonstrate the alleged impossibility of "macroevolution" (a highly subjective term at the best of times).

The whole "debate" has less to do with scientific observation as such and more to do with a kind of cognitive bias that is common to humans, whereby we want to believe that things are essentially what they are. The fact that it isn't actually the case is unintuitive to us.

That's a Buddhist answer, by the way. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are pretty much isolated on this issue (and in the wider belief that science is a conspiracy to lead people astray).

 

[outhouse]

A lot of footprints have been found with Dinosaur and Human remains overlapping.

Not a single one has ever been found to be genuine, or credible in any way.

This Video is also

Garbage containing lies and pseudoscience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

I think this is where we all have common ground. As a creationist I accept the unambiguous observation that slight differences occur through generations, that two children born of the same parents are (usually) not identical.

The part where eyes, wings, sentient brains are formed through accidental random changes is something else entirely- you describe it as an 'illusion' and I would agree.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think this is where we all have common ground. As a creationist I accept the unambiguous observation that slight differences occur through generations, that two children born of the same parents are (usually) not identical.

The part where eyes, wings, sentient brains are formed through accidental random changes is something else entirely- you describe it as an 'illusion' and I would agree.

You don't agree. It is an illusion to think that something bursts into being with great changes in short amounts of time. But the line between wing and no wing is not a solid line. The line between sentient brain and non-sentient brain is also a hard line to divide. Its not pure and random chance. You keep saying it like you are making a point but all you do is discredit whatever you say with this phrase. Hopefully you will respond and state it correctly.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You don't agree. It is an illusion to think that something bursts into being with great changes in short amounts of time. But the line between wing and no wing is not a solid line. The line between sentient brain and non-sentient brain is also a hard line to divide. Its not pure and random chance. You keep saying it like you are making a point but all you do is discredit whatever you say with this phrase. Hopefully you will respond and state it correctly.

Not pure and random chance, I agree, improvements are designed, they follow a specific blueprint that predetermines the specific outcome, just like the rest of the universe, why would life be any different?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not pure and random chance, I agree, improvements are designed, they follow a specific blueprint that predetermines the specific outcome, just like the rest of the universe, why would life be any different?

Because there is no evidence of a designer. There is evidence of aimless mutations that are plentiful. They are all either beneficial, harmful or neutral. Neutral ones may cause genetic drift but won't cause population wide change. Harmful ones will not be passed on and will be weeded out. Beneficial ones are far more likely to be passed on and will eventually change the entire population after enough generations.

So we have an engine that we know exists, the mutations. We have a mechanism that keeps the engine on track, natural selection. We then even have evidence that this process works, has worked and continues to work (fossils, DNA, ect). We know that the amount of time required is enough (geology).

So why would anyone assume that it is designed on purpose? Improvements are often not designed. Only a few improvements are designed and they are rare and exclusively human made. In the grand scheme of things they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because there is no evidence of a designer. There is evidence of aimless mutations that are plentiful. They are all either beneficial, harmful or neutral. Neutral ones may cause genetic drift but won't cause population wide change. Harmful ones will not be passed on and will be weeded out. Beneficial ones are far more likely to be passed on and will eventually change the entire population after enough generations.

So we have an engine that we know exists, the mutations. We have a mechanism that keeps the engine on track, natural selection. We then even have evidence that this process works, has worked and continues to work (fossils, DNA, ect). We know that the amount of time required is enough (geology).

So why would anyone assume that it is designed on purpose? Improvements are often not designed. Only a few improvements are designed and they are rare and exclusively human made. In the grand scheme of things they are the exception rather than the rule.

Designed improvements are the only ones we can be absolutely sure of, the jury is out on the rest.

I think we can both agree to accept and put aside neutral mutations as playing no great role here right? So which is a mutation more likely to be? significantly harmful or significantly beneficial? and by what margin?

 

[outhouse]

Designed improvements are the only ones we can be absolutely sure of

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Start backing these false statements with credible sources.

Evolution Is fact and not up for debate.

Creation is outlawed so we don't poison childrens minds in science classes with worthless pseudoscience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Designed improvements are the only ones we can be absolutely sure of, the jury is out on the rest.

False.

I think we can both agree to accept and put aside neutral mutations as playing no great role here right? So which is a mutation more likely to be? significantly harmful or significantly beneficial? and by what margin?

The beneficial ones are the ones that are far more likely to be passed down. By a near infinitely large margin at that. Is this what you are asking?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False.

The beneficial ones are the ones that are far more likely to be passed down. By a near infinitely large margin at that. Is this what you are asking?

No, the mutations themselves, reach into human DNA with a stick and stir it up a little, what do you get?

we agree that many alterations are neutral, insignificant. What do you think is the probability you will create a significantly superior being?

what are the odds you will create a significantly inferior one?

 

[outhouse]

No, the mutations themselves, reach into human DNA with a stick and stir it up a little, what do you get?

we agree that many alterations are neutral, insignificant. What do you think is the probability you will create a significantly superior being?

what are the odds you will create a significantly inferior one?

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Start backing these false statements with credible sources.

Evolution Is fact and not up for debate.

Creation is outlawed so we don't poison childrens minds in science classes with worthless pseudoscience.

 

[Kirran]

It doesn't just 'stir it up and make a superior being'. It does it by increments. And 'superior' is subjective, of course.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, the mutations themselves, reach into human DNA with a stick and stir it up a little, what do you get?

A very tiny stick if DNA can hold it.

we agree that many alterations are neutral, insignificant. What do you think is the probability you will create a significantly superior being?

what are the odds you will create a significantly inferior one?

The probability of a harmful mutation vastly outweighs that of a beneficial one. However just as we can safely ignore the neutral ones we can safely ignore the harmful ones when looking at the changes in populations rather than individuals.

Now you have asked me a strange question. One about "slightly inferior". My guess is that you are grasping at the straws of slightly harmful mutations can occur and be passed on. This is true. However usually they are weeded out over the generations. This isn't always the case.

Lets take a really really really really really really really really really really common one. One that exists in all populations in the world of humans. Poor eyesight. In the past the gene that causes poor eyesight wasn't enough to kill off the individual unless they has substantially worse eyesight that normal. However the ones who scoot by with 20-30 or 30-40 can make it just fine. In the past they would have been slighly less likely to survive than those with good eyesight. It didn't eradicate this gene but it maintained its slight existence within our species. Now that we have corrected this with modern glasses we see a huge recurrence of these genes and now we have far more poor sighted individuals in just a few hundred years without this inhibitor.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to the development of beneficial genes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't just 'stir it up and make a superior being'. It does it by increments. And 'superior' is subjective, of course.

If a single mutation does not lead to a being who is superior, then how exactly does this being outcompete the rest of the gene pool!? explicitly by the power of this random improvement- to the point of significantly out reproducing everybody else - such an advantage that even it's offspring will continue to benefit from this single 'random mutation'- endowing the entire pool with it!

 

[Kirran]

If a single mutation does not lead to a being who is superior, then how exactly does this being outcompete the rest of the gene pool!? explicitly by the power of this random improvement- to the point of significantly out reproducing everybody else - such an advantage that even it's offspring will continue to benefit from this single 'random mutation'- endowing the entire pool with it!

Yeah, so it increases the chances of that gene being passed on, however marginally. That's how it works.

But 'superior' is a value judgement.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, so it increases the chances of that gene being passed on, however marginally. That's how it works.

But 'superior' is a value judgement.

A very tiny stick if DNA can hold it.


The probability of a harmful mutation vastly outweighs that of a beneficial one. However just as we can safely ignore the neutral ones we can safely ignore the harmful ones when looking at the changes in populations rather than individuals.

Now you have asked me a strange question. One about "slightly inferior". My guess is that you are grasping at the straws of slightly harmful mutations can occur and be passed on. This is true. However usually they are weeded out over the generations. This isn't always the case.

Lets take a really really really really really really really really really really common one. One that exists in all populations in the world of humans. Poor eyesight. In the past the gene that causes poor eyesight wasn't enough to kill off the individual unless they has substantially worse eyesight that normal. However the ones who scoot by with 20-30 or 30-40 can make it just fine. In the past they would have been slighly less likely to survive than those with good eyesight. It didn't eradicate this gene but it maintained its slight existence within our species. Now that we have corrected this with modern glasses we see a huge recurrence of these genes and now we have far more poor sighted individuals in just a few hundred years without this inhibitor.

And all of this is totally irrelevant to the development of beneficial genes.

how vastly would you say? can you take a stab at the ratio? again ignoring 'insignificant' and as I'm saying to Kirran- significant means- actually able to successfully directly drive increased reproduction among it's competitors... otherwise the mechanism is simply not operating in this individual case. a marginal advantage does nothing if it does not actually succeed directly in passing itself on more effectively than other individuals.

 

[Kirran]

But it can have that effect marginally. Doesn't have to be some massive change in fitness.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

how vastly would you say? can you take a stab at the ratio? again ignoring 'insignificant' and as I'm saying to Kirran- significant means- actually able to successfully directly drive increased reproduction among it's competitors... otherwise the mechanism is simply not operating in this individual case. a marginal advantage does nothing if it does not actually succeed directly in passing itself on more effectively than other individuals.

We don't have the ratio as we can't actively track harmful mutations in the gene pool as they are usually wiped out and have no living populations that work as their decadents to provide us an account. The gene pool only remembers the sucessful.

However we do know from medical records that far more harmful mutations occur than beneficial ones on an individual level. But we are talking populations. Within populations far more beneficial mutations occur than harmful ones.

I have entertained your question enough now. Is there any sort of point you are attempting to lasso?