Why do people still believe in macro evolution?

[ObligationLaunch]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why do some people still believe in god??? I mean it is backed up by nothing but a 2,000 year old book.

At least macro evolution has real support.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Why do some people still believe in god??? I mean it is backed up by nothing but a 2,000 year old book.

At least macro evolution has real support.

Trying to confuse the info again with irrelevant nonsense, girly?

and real support? Bring it on , mate!!!!

There is NONE.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do some people still believe in god??? I mean it is backed up by nothing but a 2,000 year old book.

At least macro evolution has real support.

But it doesn't. It simply doesn't. Once you peal away the endless "it is true" montra, and look at the empirical evidence, there is no real evidence. You realize that in all these hundreds of years of looking, we have yet to find even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE... of a transitional species. Not even one.

Given how many different kinds of animals there are, we should find hundreds on hundreds of examples, where one animal 'evolved' into another animal, over supposed millions and millions of years.

Not one! Not even ONE.

Now if you don't want to believe in G-d, knock yourself out. When I die I'm going to Heaven, and when you die, you'll go to whatever. Fine. You make your choice.

But don't sit there and claim your belief is "scientific" with your mythical faeries and unicorns, and not a shred of evidence supporting your dreamy fake theories. This is why scientific research is in such a bad state. People pushing ideological myths, instead of real empirical science.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From What is macroevolution?

What is macroevolution?

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

The history of life, on a grand scale.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms likemutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The systems for proof of faith and science are different.

I believe both exist, and nothing leads me to think that a non-belief in evolution is necessary for salvation.

 

[jillian]

Why do some people still believe in god??? I mean it is backed up by nothing but a 2,000 year old book.

At least macro evolution has real support.

Trying to confuse the info again with irrelevant nonsense, girly?

and real support? Bring it on , mate!!!!

There is NONE.

yeah, you're not a creationist at all. lol

do you think you insult a man by calling him "girly"?

rightwingnuts are funny

 

[Rouge Rover]

Why do some people still believe in god??? I mean it is backed up by nothing but a 2,000 year old book.

At least macro evolution has real support.

Trying to confuse the info again with irrelevant nonsense, girly?

and real support? Bring it on , mate!!!!

There is NONE.

Ad Hominem. I only point this out because I know how you feel about ad homs. I'm sure you didn't mean it though

If you want proof go look in the mirror, there's your proof.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

what silly sods

 

[ObligationLaunch]

The systems for proof of faith and science are different.

I believe both exist, and nothing leads me to think that a non-belief in evolution is necessary for salvation.

Not really, ; 'science' is nothing more then a slighlty disguised religion!

It is a control tool.

 

[abu afak]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?
There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!.
And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,
then I think it to be untrue.
To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

You are a Kweationist or you have a below 70 IQ. Most likely Both.
The other Strings starts you tried to put in this section (now moved) show you to be a Lunatic and Conspiracyst.
see Below

But it doesn't. It simply doesn't. Once you peal away the endless "it is true" montra, and look at the empirical evidence, there is no real evidence. You realize that in all these hundreds of years of looking, we have yet to find even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE... of a transitional species. Not even one.

Given how many different kinds of animals there are, we should find hundreds on hundreds of examples, where one animal 'evolved' into another animal, over supposed millions and millions of years.

Not one! Not even ONE.
....

WHAT?

ALL species have ancestors.. with Fossil Evidence.
ALL species are transitional/constantly evolving.. or have gone/will go extinct.
There is no 'final form'.

ie, We Humans/the Latest Homo, like all animals, have ANATOMICAL VESTIGES of our ancestors.
An immaculate 'creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. [/B]For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae[/B] (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted (Notes). These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult.The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​

 

[abu afak]

delete

 

[Syriusly]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

There is not a shred of evidence that macro evolution is true!

And no , I am not a creationist, I just simply look for evidence and if there is none,

then I think it to be untrue.

To believe in macro evolution , against all odds, is , in my humble opinion, ridiculous.

What is 'macro evolution'?

There is evolution.

If you want to deny the evidence that points to evolution being the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, that is your right.

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Yawwwwn

That I have no theory makes a wong theory not right, of course.

Only evidence does, Problem here: There is no evidence

 

[ObligationLaunch]

You are a Kweationist or you have a below 70 IQ. Most likely Both.

Wow! The Ad Hominem again! Something I wrote?

The other Strings starts you tried to put in this section (now moved) show you to be a Lunatic and Conspiracyst.
see Below

Lunatic? No, Conspiratist (=fact seeker) , yes!! yes!! What is wrong with that?

Read his:

 

[abu afak]

Wow! The Ad Hominem again! Something I wrote?
Lunatic? No, Conspiratist (=fact seeker) , yes!! yes!! What is wrong with that?
Read this:...

Hey Loony Tune..
Do you have any Reply to the EVIDENCE I put up in support of evolution?
OR will it be the DISHONEST Focus on only the small Ad Hom part.

Nor have you explained Your theory, since you don't believe in Evolution OR creation.
And What does a CIA graphic/quote have to do with Darwinian Evolution?

You are Certifiably insane and I don't imagine will be around here long.
BTW, you should give the other patients a chance at the machine.
+

 

[SixFoot]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

 

[Syriusly]

What is the theory that you believe explains the diversity of life on Earth?

Yawwwwn

That I have no theory makes a wong theory not right, of course.

Only evidence does, Problem here: There is no evidence

Okay- so you have no clue as to why there is life across the United States- and no curiousity as to why there is life across the United States- just an abiding rejection of the only theory that does fit the evidence we have.

And yes- we have lots of evidence.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution to be a valid theory. If God created the Universe with a grand design in mind, I don't see why it's so far-fetched to acknowledge that it would include designing the very laws of physics/mechanics that govern our lower-dimensional existence.

...unless one reads the Bible in a strictly literal sense. In that case, I could understand one's confusion on the existence of existence.

So the Bible isn't literal? Then how do you if ANYTHING it says is even remotely true? I've never understood people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the fundamentals of Christianity".

 

[ObligationLaunch]

And yes- we have lots of evidence.

SHOW THEM!!!!!

WHY DON'T PEOPLE DO THIS? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE!