Evolution

[Guisslapp]

I was honestly surprised when I read on this forum one day that some of my educated colleagues do not "believe in" "macroevolution" (the latter term actually be something of a new concept to me). Personally, I still don't understand what the real difference is between micro/macro. I understand that people use "macro" to describe formation of new "species" but it seems obviously clear to me that once enough microevolution has occured you can look at one creature and another and recognize one as a new species. Thus, macro is the sum total of microevolution.

Sure, macroevolution has not been "proven," per se - it has not been actually observed to my knowledge. But as a theory, it is almost universally accepted. The problem with the argument "it has not been proven" is that evolution is such a slow process that it would be impossible to witness. HOWEVER, the strength of the evidence that macroevolution is overwhelming. It is clear and convincing. There is no other rational explanation for the evidence. There is no evidence against it. Thus, although the concept may not reach the level of "proven" to some of you it is appropriate to consider it "certain" in the context of the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...eorytobetested

This is a great reference with cites to the particular evidence. If you are one of the holdouts on this issue, you really owe it to yourself to make sure you have considered the evidence. BTW, there is also a link on this page to a "young earth creationist" response to the evidence. There is also a rebuttal to the YEC's response.

[johnnylightnin]

Sure, macroevolution has not been "proven," per se - it has not been actually observed to my knowledge.

As a self-proclaimed objectivists, it seems to me that this statement says it all. There is evidence against macro-evolution. There are holes in the fossil record. There is an incredible lack of evidence of "evolving" species in the fossil record. Like you said, as a theory, it's solid. But, there is not enough evidence to declare macro-evolution as scientifically water-tight...so to speak.

[Bigdog13]

"(T)he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

-Charles Darwin

[arkansasbob]

"(T)he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

-Charles Darwin

i don't have the quote to back it up, but darwin also hypothesized that with several more decades of excavation, many more intermediates would be found that would validate his theory. how many decades have passed, and how many intermediates have been found (not counting the ones that have been discredited)?

[Guisslapp]

What holes?

[Guisslapp]

Lack of a specific piece of evidence that you would like to see doesn't constitute evidence AGAINST macroevolution.

Quick revisit of the cognitive value of knowledge:
TRUE - validated by perceptual evidence
FALSE - invalidated by perceptual evidence
CERTAIN - all the evidence points to the conclusion, no evidence points away from it
PROBABLE - the greater weight of the evidence points to it, no evidence against it
POSSIBLE - some evidence for it, no evidence against it
UNLIKELY - inconclusive evidence against it
ARBITRARY - no evidence whatsoever

[johnnylightnin]

Lack of a specific piece of evidence that you would like to see doesn't constitute evidence AGAINST macroevolution.

Me and the gremlin find that incredibly funny. goodnight

[Bigdog13]

Me and the gremlin find that incredibly funny. goodnight

You beat me to that one.

[Guisslapp]

Me and the gremlin find that incredibly funny. goodnight

You guys realize that there IS PLENTY OF perceptual evidence for evolution unlike the invisible gremlin, right? Archeological evidence, anatomical evidence, genetic evidence...

[johnnylightnin]

You guys realize that there IS PLENTY OF perceptual evidence for evolution unlike the invisible gremlin, right?

For microevolution...not macro. You've got to have faith for macroevolution...I always knew you were a man of faith.

[marketdawg]

Can't make that opening..that is also the opening of Dodo bird hunting season. They taste great, sort of like a passsenger pigeon. :icon_wink:

[arkansasbob]

There is no other rational explanation for the evidence. There is no evidence against it.

i agree that if one starts with the premise that special creation is not a rational explanation, then macroevolution appears to be the only rational explanation. this, ironically, is the primary argument that darwinists fall back on when the unlikeliness of some of their explanations is brought to light, and it is the one argument that is of no use in a rational debate with a creationist.

[Bigdog13]

i agree that if one starts with the premise that special creation is not a rational explanation, then macroevolution appears to be the only rational explanation. this, ironically, is the primary argument that darwinists fall back on when the unlikeliness of some of their explanations is brought to light, and it is the one argument that is of no use in a rational debate with a creationist.

That would make evolution more philosophy than science.

[arkansasbob]

That would make evolution more philosophy than science.

precisely.

[Guisslapp]

You guys realize that Darwin is not the authority on evolution. He was the first to propose the theory back in 1859 A LONG TIME before we have MOST of the evidence in favor of it. 150 years later ALL of the scientific evidence still backs the theory. I think the vestigial evidence is very compelling. Seeing aquatic creatures like dolphins that have vesitges of legs (shows up only when the dolphin is a fetus) and animals that live on land that have vestiges of an aquatic heritage is intriguing. Post Darwin we have also discovered many fossils of the intermediates.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._intermediates

I take it you guys don't really want to educate yourselves on the evidence that is out there?