Do you think Darwin is right

[akuma587]

mrstickball said:

jv103 said:

mrstickball said:
Darwinian macro-evolution has been proven wrong in the form that Darwin argued it was in. It's not a gradual process that changed monkey into man (as seen in the made-up sketches that we all know of apes turning into neanderthals, into humans). His theories on micro evolution have indeed been proven right....So it's a mixed bag on what Darwin did for evolutionary theory.

darryl - Some Darwinists (especially in the scientific community) use Darwinism to attack IT/Creationism, so neither side of the argument are clean when it comes to targeting the other side.

 Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution cannot be seperated. Think about it. lol

Yes they can. The diversification of a subspieces (such as various breeds of dogs) is observable, and rather easy. However, it's a little bit tougher to observe evolution at the species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom. The further you go back, the fewer records we have.

The issue is that many Darwinists/Evolutionists take is that 'well, since we can see evolution between subspecies of dogs, it must mean that we evolved from inorganic matter!' - despite the fact that such a claim is very, very implausible.

Oh, hey, Akuma, if ID is such a waste of time, mind telling me how the universe began? And exactly what theory should we teach in classrooms, then?

That is a philosophical question.  Science doesn't try to answer how the universe began.  It will try to explain how the universe (at least as we know it) reached its current form by using the Big Bang Theory, but any scientist who tries to tell you how the universe is created is full of it, because there isn't any strong evidence out there that could let him make that assertion.  If you don't understand the distinction I just made, then you should learn more about the Big Bang Theory.

Speculation on something for which there is no empirical evidence to make a determination on is better left to theology and philosophy.  It has no place in a science class room.  Sure, its an interesting question, but until there is some evidence to work with science has no answer to that question.  Science is the interpretation of observable fact.

Your definition of "observable" is overly narrow.  Not to mention you are looking at things simply based on the fossil record.  The distinction between micro and macroevolution is muddled at best.  A perfect example is comparing the human chromosome sets with those of the different primates.  Its really pretty fascinating stuff.  You will see when you align where the gene sequences match up that humans essentially have a few hybrid chromosomes caused by a chromosomal translocation (grafting of one chromosome onto another).  Quite a few genes and a set of degenerate chromosomes formed because of this transloaction were lost in the process.  Thus, we have 46 chromosomes with almost perfect sequences on some of them from those "lost" chromosomes that you can find in primates. 

Honestly, the DNA record is as rich or richer than the fossil record.  You are looking at evolution from the perspective of the 1950's, before genetics and DNA theories started dominating the field.

Don't even get me started on things like the endosymbiont hypothesis.  If that doesn't convince you that organisms share a common ancestry, nothing will.  Not to mention it is pretty impressive how much of our genome is still identical to the average plant's genome.

But honestly I can't even tell you if some of these things are macroevolution or microevolution, because in actuality they are sort of both.  The distinction between macroevolution and microevoltion is only becoming more and more convoluted with how driven the field has become on genes and DNA.  One simple bout of "microevolution" can give rise to an entirely different taxonomic kingdom.  Take something like the repositioning of HOX genes.  Man, BIOLOGY IS SO COOL!  WHY DID I GO TO LAW SCHOOL!