Why do people still believe in macro evolution?

[ObligationLaunch]

I don't need one at all!

It is not about having a theory, it is about havinge E V I D E N C E

for a theory.

In this case, there is none.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't need one at all!

It is not about having a theory, it is about havinge E V I D E N C E

for a theory.

In this case, there is none.

Why don't you respond to the evidence provided in this thread?

Troll more

 

[PredFan]

Why do people still believe in macro-evolution?

Because it's the best explanation for what we see. It has a lot of data to support it.

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

We could argue that but lets say I give that to you. Evolution is the best explanation for the facts we have.

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.

That's a pretty ignorant stance.

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

It isn't against all odds. In fact the odds are extremely high that Macro-Evolution is true.

where is the evidence then, mate?

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

I don't need one at all!

It is not about having a theory, it is about havinge E V I D E N C E

for a theory.

In this case, there is none.

Why don't you respond to the evidence provided in this thread?

Troll more

I did!

I wrote it is ONLY evidence if you already belief in the cult of (macro)evolution.

Btw

Why does evolution need so much hoaxes. one after the other?
You would think then that there is something rather fishy about the whole
evolution thing, ain't it?

Of course there is! It is a hoax!

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

Sooo?? we don't need evidence anymore?
You are hilarious here!

 

[PredFan]

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

Sooo?? we don't need evidence anymore?
You are hilarious here!

You really aren't too bright are you?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

Sooo?? we don't need evidence anymore?
You are hilarious here!

You really aren't too bright are you?

Maybe maybe not, Who cares? Now, about that evidence...

 

[PredFan]

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

Sooo?? we don't need evidence anymore?
You are hilarious here!

You really aren't too bright are you?

Maybe maybe not, Who cares? Now, about that evidence...

How dense are you exactly? Is it that you can't read?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

[

How dense are you exactly? Is it that you can't read?

some evidence yet?

 

[PredFan]

[

How dense are you exactly? Is it that you can't read?

some evidence yet?

Look you illiterate nit wit, I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we have. I never said there was any evidence. There doesn't have to be. What is it that makes it hard for you to understand? I don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already have. How fucking stupid are you?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't need one at all!

It is not about having a theory, it is about havinge E V I D E N C E

for a theory.

In this case, there is none.

Why don't you respond to the evidence provided in this thread?

Troll more

I did!

I wrote it is ONLY evidence if you already belief in the cult of (macro)evolution.

Btw

Why does evolution need so much hoaxes. one after the other?
You would think then that there is something rather fishy about the whole
evolution thing, ain't it?

Of course there is! It is a hoax!

Despite your head in the ground retorts, this thread has surely proven the existence of macroevolution

Didn't work out as you thought did it?

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Look you illiterate nit wit, I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we have. I never said there was any evidence. There doesn't have to be. What is it that makes it hard for you to understand? I don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already have. How fucking stupid are you?

So....

Let's see, you have nice little (weong_ theory here,
Now, normally people look for some sort of evidence, or
some counter evidence.(falsification)

But, one way or another you even write:

I never said there was any evidence. There doesn't have to be

Very interesting indeed.Me think that most scientists would disagree
with that.

I know also some lovely theories and they look so well.

However, there is no evidence to back that up.

But that doesn't matter now, does it?




Very funny you are.

 

[ObligationLaunch]

Despite your head in the ground retorts, this thread has surely proven the existence of macroevolution

Didn't work out as you thought did it?

Nope, that 'evidence' only works as one is already a evolutioncult believer.

 

[PredFan]

Look you illiterate nit wit, I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we have. I never said there was any evidence. There doesn't have to be. What is it that makes it hard for you to understand? I don't know how to dumb this down any more than I already have. How fucking stupid are you?

So....

Let's see, you have nice little (weong_ theory here,
Now, normally people look for some sort of evidence, or
some counter evidence.(falsification)

But, one way or another you even write:

I never said there was any evidence. There doesn't have to be

Very interesting indeed.Me think that most scientists would disagree
with that.

I know also some lovely theories and they look so well.

However, there is no evidence to back that up.

But that doesn't matter now, does it?




Very funny you are.

If I said in front of any scientist that "evolution is the best explanation for the facts that we have" no scientist would disagree with that, except maybe the "scientists" that creationists have on their side.

I only mention "evidence" because you insist on it.

Got it yet moron?

 

[rightwinger]

Despite your head in the ground retorts, this thread has surely proven the existence of macroevolution

Didn't work out as you thought did it?

Nope, that 'evidence' only works as one is already a evolutioncult believer.

Macroevolution has been clearly proven in this thread
Your premise is obviously incorrect

 

[ObligationLaunch]

I only mention "evidence" because you insist on it.

Got it yet moron?

I don't care how many scientists believe nonsense.
That is just groupthink!

no evidence, no glory, oeps.............. no theory!

too simple for you?

And why all the yelling!?

The lady is protesting......too much.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't need one at all!

It is not about having a theory, it is about havinge E V I D E N C E

for a theory.

In this case, there is none.

So you have absolutely zero evidence that birds mammals reptiles amphibians fish & insects all developed independently.

Do you know why you have no evidence? Because most likely we all share a common ancestor that crawled out of the water and started walking on land. All of us at one time came from a water breathing creature.

Now I've always said that to me it seems possible that the bird fish crawled out at a different place and time than the reptile fish and the mammal fish crawled out at a different time but are you suggesting that there was a tiger, rat, bear, dog, pig, goat, kangaroo, giraffe, elephant fish?

It is far more likely that one animal crawled out and became all the different animals we see today. And although I could believe it if reptiles developed completely independent to us, scientists believe we are all related. And there is lots of reasons/evidence to support their theories. NONE to support yours.

And no new species has crawled out of the water and started to breath air since we've been around. I would love to see God put another creature on this planet that isn't a birds mammals reptiles amphibians fish or insect.

 

[sealybobo]

Can you not read? I didn't say there was evidence. I said that evolution was the best explanation for the facts we do have.

Sooo?? we don't need evidence anymore?
You are hilarious here!

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.
The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.
Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.
The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.
The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.
But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.
Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.
The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

 

[sealybobo]

All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins,
from the smallest microbes to blue whales.
A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are, Theobald said.

 

[sealybobo]

That's because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins, he said. If life arose from multiple species—each with a different set of proteins—many more mutations would have been required.

"What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry ... because we know that's not always true,"

[FONT=Chronicle SSm 3r, Georgia, serif]But it's highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences[/FONT]

[FONT=Chronicle SSm 3r, Georgia, serif]Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/FONT]