• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

macroevolution is not observable

vondaniken

New Member
i understand microevolution is observable (this is just variation in species) due to change in genetic information. But the theory of macroevolution takes millions of years it has never been observed, there is no record of any specie changing into anything else in nature, it has never been observed, it is , so why do these people believe in it? when it can not be seen? evolutionists then are no different than theists.. those both put faith into things which can not be directly observed...
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Welcome to RF, vondaniken.
Evolution's been a recurring topic here for years -- check out some of the current and past threads.

As for macroevolution, it has been observed. It's really no different from microevolution. It's just accumulated or continuing microevolution.
Check it out: CB910: New species

If you're interested in evolution or the evolution-intelligent design controversy you could spend all day surfing through theTalk Origins site.:yes:
 
i understand microevolution is observable (this is just variation in species) due to change in genetic information. But the theory of macroevolution takes millions of years it has never been observed, there is no record of any specie changing into anything else in nature, it has never been observed, it is , so why do these people believe in it? when it can not be seen? evolutionists then are no different than theists.. those both put faith into things which can not be directly observed...

As Seyorni pointed out, there ARE instances of macroevolution (i.e. speciation) being directly observed but even if not many many things in nature we know to be real can only be indirectly observed. Atoms for example.

The evolutionary lineage of many species, Genera, Orders, even Classes and Phyla can be readily seen in the fossil record and modern Genetics has verified the common ancestry of the species.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Every time a creationist says something stupid, an angel gets its wings.

They must be highly motivated to produce angels.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
i understand microevolution is observable (this is just variation in species) due to change in genetic information. But the theory of macroevolution takes millions of years it has never been observed, there is no record of any specie changing into anything else in nature, it has never been observed, it is , so why do these people believe in it? when it can not be seen?
Thing is, it can be seen. Changes over millions of years can be seen in connecting the dots between each visible stage of development. It's no different than any other practice of connecting the dots.

evolutionists then are no different than theists.. those both put faith into things which can not be directly observed...
Everyone does this, yes. Everyone plays "Connect the Dots."

(If I recall, your namesake, Von Däniken, was especially good at it.)
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Why the consistent desire of Creationist to drag the objective, empirical evidence of biological evolution down to their own level of subjective faith?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Macro evolution has been observed it hasnt been observed as much as creationist misuse the term macro evolution but it has ben observed.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
i understand microevolution is observable (this is just variation in species) due to change in genetic information. But the theory of macroevolution takes millions of years it has never been observed, there is no record of any specie changing into anything else in nature, it has never been observed, it is , so why do these people believe in it? when it can not be seen? evolutionists then are no different than theists.. those both put faith into things which can not be directly observed...

You are mistaken. In fact we do observe new species arising from existing species, in the exact manner predicted and described by the Theory of Evolution. (ToE). If you like, I can provide you with some examples.
If I do, will you change your position?
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Pre-emptive note: this individual may not be a theistic creationist, as von Daniken is the guy that wrote the "Chariots of the Gods," i.e. all that "alien astronaut" crap that History channel eats up.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
i understand microevolution is observable (this is just variation in species) due to change in genetic information. But the theory of macroevolution takes millions of years it has never been observed, there is no record of any specie changing into anything else in nature, it has never been observed, it is , so why do these people believe in it? when it can not be seen? evolutionists then are no different than theists.. those both put faith into things which can not be directly observed...
It's a common misconception that speciation is not observable. Thankfully, there are several examples of such events being recorded over time. One interesting example is thr "London Underground Mosquito".

wa:do
 

vondaniken

New Member
How is the mosquito evidence for speciation? No new specie was created, the mosquitos were still mosquitos and as further observations showed they all died. So how is this a case of speciation? Do you know what speciation is? There was absolutely no sign of a new specie being created all that changed was the mosquitos behaviour which actually lead to the mosquitos death. Who ever added this example is being dishonest, the London Mosquitos prove the theory of devolution, not evolution.

Mutations prove devolution. Every mutation that has ever been observed has been harmful, nothing to be gained out of evolution. The whole world is dieing. nature is fundamentally discontinuous.

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information.

“Macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist has never been observed and how could it? where does this new information come from?.

Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear. Macroevolution is a fairytale.

According to lead evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne macroevolution is not observable, it seems religion forums is the only forum in the world where people admit macroevolution is observable, please stop lieing to yourself it can not been seen with the physical eye.

"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, "it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time" Macroevolution is not osbservable end of story.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You might want to take a look around. Painted Wolf knows her business and has created some threads showing evidence of speciation.

It is surprising how much mileage this urban legend that "macroevolution" is not observable gets. You have no idea how different the truth is.

BTW, I take it that you already know of talkorigins.org? If not, take a look, you will be surprised.
 

Gloone

Well-Known Member
Pre-emptive note: this individual may not be a theistic creationist, as von Daniken is the guy that wrote the "Chariots of the Gods," i.e. all that "alien astronaut" crap that History channel eats up.
... and it is a theory just like ToE is. But I guess that is just science for you.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
The alien astronaut thing is certainly not a theory.

Also, electrons are not observable. Will you stop using your computer, since it's silicon hardware was built to exploit them?
 

David M

Well-Known Member
How is the mosquito evidence for speciation? No new specie was created, the mosquitos were still mosquitos and as further observations showed they all died. So how is this a case of speciation? Do you know what speciation is? There was absolutely no sign of a new specie being created all that changed was the mosquitos behaviour which actually lead to the mosquitos death. Who ever added this example is being dishonest, the London Mosquitos prove the theory of devolution, not evolution.
Wrong.

Mutations prove devolution. Every mutation that has ever been observed has been harmful, nothing to be gained out of evolution. The whole world is dieing. nature is fundamentally discontinuous.
Wrong.

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information.
Wrong.

“Macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist has never been observed and how could it? where does this new information come from?.
Wrong

Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.
Right.

Macroevolution is a fairytale.
Wrong

According to lead evolutionists such as Jerry Coyne macroevolution is not observable, it seems religion forums is the only forum in the world where people admit macroevolution is observable, please stop lieing to yourself it can not been seen with the physical eye.
Wrong.

"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, "it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time" Macroevolution is not osbservable end of story.
Wrong.

The only statement that was factually correct is one that you meant as sarcasm.

Either your sources are lying to you or you are ignorant about evolution and the evidence for it.

Speciation has been observed (and by the way "mosquito" is not a species any more than "beetle" is a species), beneficial mutations have been observed, you are so wring you are not even wrong.
 
Top