By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Epoch on 23 May 2009
Edit Thread
CHYUII said:


Todays findings is the monkey, right, I haven't looked it up yet but I want to ask you are the fossils actually confirmed by the scientific community as a whole? OR did the press pick up the story because of the exciting hypothesis and then by faith people took it as fact shortly after? There have been tons of blunders through out the centuries.

LOL, Macro- evolution may have been invented by Creationist BUT it is just a word that says, "I reject a part of what you propose and accept part of it too." Think of it as a Line Item veto. It just says, "That the data shows this but it does not show that." If I accept GOOD science and reject BAD science (Being "harder to prove") does that mean that I hate science? I think it is unreasonable to say that they are one in the same especially when scientist do use it and athiest scientist who challenge Creationist and ID's also use the term.

as I was just informed above the Theory of Evolution has many parts so how absurd would it be to say that you have to take all of it or none of it at all?

The idea that you can't separate Micro from Macro is just absurd and irrational. It is just language trick. Whether you want them seperated or not it is not up to you language is bigger than you.

 

Let us stop the madness- what is this proof that you state. Give me 7 examples of your PROOF of MACRO.

I can give you two recent ones off the top of my head:

Blue Moon Butterfly evolving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

Wall Lizard evolution: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html  (Hyperlinking broken =/)

The fact that we have even managed to observe these changes within a human lifespan is impressive.

I would also like to address your comment about random chance not giving rise to more complex life.  I assume you are referring to the statistical proof that as time goes on, everything trends towards becoming less complex.  This has been mathematically proven many times, and in a few billion years, will be proven again.  However, you have conveniently left out the fact that this is a non-linear progression, and there are bound to be spikes and dips in the complexity curve; a la Chaos Theory.  So while it is true that eventually the universe will revert to its simplest form, along the way the theory allows for increases/decreases in complexity. Hence our puny existance.

I don't really understand your argument for not believing in Macro evolution.  If you agree that it occurs on a smaller scale, and you understand how genetics work, wouldn't it give rise to macro evolution?  A lot of the anti-evolution posts here seem to be fueled by a lack of scientific understanding, or by people who focus on half of a theory without fully comprehending the rest.