Why do people still believe in macro evolution?

[ObligationLaunch]

It all sounds good, but it still lacks.....evidence!


WHY?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You must be trying to say something different than what you actually said.

Why would we look for evidence that we ourselves deny exists? There should be zero evidence that birds mammals reptiles amphibians fish & insects all developed independently, or developed together.

We believe that G-d spoke, and everything came into existence, as he spoke.

The fossil record shows exactly that. The Cambrian explosion does not support the slow over millions of years evolution. But exactly as the name implies, an explosion of fossils show all difference kinds of animals.

Again, the evolution theory, is exactly that a theory... a theory based on myths and legends, more than fact.

 

[abu afak]

You must be trying to say something different than what you actually said.
Why would we look for evidence that we ourselves DENY exists? There should be zero evidence that birds mammals reptiles amphibians fish & insects all developed independently, or developed together. We believe that G-d spoke, and everything came into existence, as he spoke.[/B]

IOW, and admittedly, you're in Total "denial" and have pre-judged based on your Indoctrination/Brainwashing.

The fossil record shows exactly that. The Cambrian explosion does not support the slow over millions of years evolution. But exactly as the name implies, an explosion of fossils show all difference kinds of animals.

The fossil record shows Transitionals for ANY/ALL species, including .. us.
The Short version

God's mistakes?
Who are those guys?
They aren't Monkeys/gorillas.

Again, the evolution theory, is exactly that a theory... a theory based on myths and legends, more than fact.

You AHOLE..
this has been extensively Debunked.
You are indeed in denial, and as much a Mental Defective as VomitedLunch.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
[....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."​

 

[Andylusion]

You must be trying to say something different than what you actually said.
Why would we look for evidence that we ourselves DENY exists? There should be zero evidence that birds mammals reptiles amphibians fish & insects all developed independently, or developed together. We believe that G-d spoke, and everything came into existence, as he spoke.[/B]

IOW, and admittedly, you're in Total "denial" and have pre-judged based on your Indoctrination/Brainwashing.

The fossil record shows exactly that. The Cambrian explosion does not support the slow over millions of years evolution. But exactly as the name implies, an explosion of fossils show all difference kinds of animals.

The fossil record shows Transitionals for ANY/ALL species, including .. us.
The Short version

God's mistakes?
Who are those guys?
They aren't Monkeys/gorillas.

Again, the evolution theory, is exactly that a theory... a theory based on myths and legends, more than fact.

You AHOLE..
this has been extensively Debunked.
You are indeed in denial, and as much a Mental Defective as VomitedLunch.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor-in-chief
June 2002
[....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."​

Perfect. I'll use your own example, as my example of your ignorance.

A. Afarensis. First picture. That's Australopithecus afarensis. This is the famous "Lucy", that was supposed to be 3.2 million years old, and the transitional ancestor of apes to humans. Right?

Let me show you the REAL.... Lucy.

That's it. That's all they have. So how did they come up with this

Answer: They made it up. They simply 'imagined' it.

Let's even look at the reconstruction of the skull. Now from the first picture, you can see they didn't have much of the upper skull, but they did have most of the jaw.

Look at what they came up with.

So from those few little fragments, they reconstructed all of this. Notice, the lower jaw looks like.... an apes jaw.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.full

In 2007, here is what was published on the research of Lucy:

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.
​

There went A. Afarensis.

Just like that, the myth and legend, that was decades as a fossil of a transitional species, explodes into dust.

Want me to explode A. Africanus too?

I'll spare you the drawn out explanations.....

Australopithecus africanus was the Taung Child fossils....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825152556.htm

Taung Child's brain development not human-like? CT scan casts doubt on similarity to that of modern humans

Whoops.... there went A Africanus. Just like that... myth and legends, went up in a puff of smoke and ashes.

But I bet you didn't know any of this did you? You didn't even check, did you? You didn't look up, or research anything, did you?

Which one of us is caught up in brainwashing and indoctrination? Which one of us is citing direct research into evolution? Instead of posting 'creationist hate propaganda'?

I wager the truth is now clear for everyone to see.

 

[abu afak]

Whoops.... there went A Africanus. Just like that... myth and legends, went up in a puff of smoke and ashes.
But I bet you didn't know any of this did you? You didn't even check, did you? You didn't look up, or research anything, did you?
Which one of us is caught up in brainwashing and indoctrination? Which one of us is citing direct research into evolution? Instead of posting 'creationist hate propaganda'?
I wager the truth is now clear for everyone to see.

There went NOTHING, except hours of Cherry-picking by you,, finding ie, One article here or there that disagrees with the great MAJORITY of evidence/opinion...
or using just one Skeleton per Proto-human AS IF That's the Only one of the type that scientists used for mock ups.
A Lie.

You also left out, ie, more recent Homo Erectus, of which he have Many Fossil skeletons as well.

homo erectus - Google Search ​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

Or the most recent Find: Homo Naledi.

NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify
H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.
Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing.
But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

and again, We Have anatomical Vestiges of our Ancestors (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx/Tail) which only COMMON DESCENT explains. As do Other species, and all their [millions of] transitional ancestors/fossils.

You also Totally WHIFFED/Got PORKED on 'Theory', committing the usual Kweationist BLUNDER/abuse of the word which WRECKS your whole Fallacy that 'theory' is only a guess.
NO ANSWER.
+

 

[Andylusion]

Whoops.... there went A Africanus. Just like that... myth and legends, went up in a puff of smoke and ashes.
But I bet you didn't know any of this did you? You didn't even check, did you? You didn't look up, or research anything, did you?
Which one of us is caught up in brainwashing and indoctrination? Which one of us is citing direct research into evolution? Instead of posting 'creationist hate propaganda'?
I wager the truth is now clear for everyone to see.

There went NOTHING, except hours of Cherry-picking by you,, finding ie, One article here or there that disagrees with the great MAJORITY of evidence/opinion...
or using just one Skeleton per Proto-human AS IF That's the Only one of the type that scientists used for mock ups.
A Lie.

You also left out, ie, more recent Homo Erectus, of which he have Many Fossil skeletons as well.

homo erectus - Google Search ​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

Or the most recent Find: Homo Naledi.

NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify
H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.
Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing.
But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

and again, We Have anatomical Vestiges of our Ancestors (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx/Tail) which only COMMON DESCENT explains. As do Other species

You also Totally WHIFFED/Got PORKED on 'Theory', committing the usual Kweationist BLUNDER/abuse of the word which WRECKS your whole Fallacy that 'theory' is only a guess.
NO ANSWER.
+

I cited the latest articles from the most up-to-date research coming from the scientific community.

You cited out dated myths and legends, and now you've blindly restated the same obsolete information that has been proven wrong by my citations of the latest information.

In other words, you have rejected valid science, to hold onto your disproved myths.

You have successfully identified yourself as anti-science, and no longer have any credibility in this discussion.

I gave you that one chance to prove you could logically and intelligently argue, and discuss new information, to show you were open minded. Instead you have proven yourself closed, and dogmatic, without any ability to move forward with truth in a rational manor.

Well, thanks for that chat. But I have dismissed you from this discussion. Since I know a closed minded bigot won't quit talking when he has clearly been beaten, then I will cease responding to the endless prattle of posts I know is coming.

For the sake of others here that will suffer reading your nonsense, I do hope you do grow up to a more mature person, who can discuss things more rationally in the future. But I won't be seeing you again. Good bye. Best to you.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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.

(A few) transitional fossils
The "transitional" fossils argument is absurd. You can't expect a transitional fossil for everything when fossilization requires specific circumstances.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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.

You're going to heaven? Where's your empirical evidence?

 

[Dovahkiin]

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".

If you believe the bible is literal, I worry.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.

Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.

Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.

A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.

But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.

There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.

Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.

So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing

LOL. "Coming from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution. That's separate.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[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.

You're going to heaven? Where's your empirical evidence?

It's all around us. Everything the Bible says that can be researched empirically, has come out to be true. Thus the credibility can be extended to all the rest of what the Bible says.

 

[Syriusly]

My apologies for mis-quoting you- I don't know how that happened- I corrected my post.

allright, accepted! Can happen. No problem and thanks for straighten that out.

And yes- there is evidence of Macro-Evolution- you just refuse to accept it.

Well, I once thought all that non-sense was true but not anymore.
Even math tells us it is impossible.!

Math doesn't tell us that evolution is impossible.

Just people with little imagination and no sense of scale do.

 

[Dovahkiin]

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.

You're going to heaven? Where's your empirical evidence?

It's all around us. Everything the Bible says that can be researched empirically, has come out to be true. Thus the credibility can be extended to all the rest of what the Bible says.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You're going to heaven? Where's your empirical evidence?

It's all around us. Everything the Bible says that can be researched empirically, has come out to be true. Thus the credibility can be extended to all the rest of what the Bible says.

Except of course- there is no evidence that the Bible's origin myth is true.

None at all.

There is not one thing from Genesis that has been proven true.

 

[Syriusly]

What is your creation theory?
Maybe we can discuss it

My ONLY point is that there is no macro evolution because there is no E V I D E N C E

You prefer to not have any ideas at all about how the diversity of life on Earth came to be. Frankly I don't know how you manage to curb you imagination so much so that you refuse to even consider any theory about how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.

Meanwhile- there is only one theory- Evolution- which best fits the evidence we have.

You can reject the evidence- and the theory- and you can put your head in the sand.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.

Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.

Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.

A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.

But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.

There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.

Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.

So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing

LOL. "Coming from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution. That's separate.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

While I get the basic gist of your point... The something from nothing, was more a reference that DNA, is a code. Code, by definition, requires a coder. Someone to create the code. Without someone to define what a code means, then a code has no meaning, purpose, let along a way to decode it.

The idea that any DNA code, can come into existence, and have a meaning, without a superior intelligence to create that code... is intellectually dishonest.

Even those who are most sold on the concept of evolution, admit this, which is why most have come to believe in some alien source of DNA. But that simply postpones the problem. We would also have to believe that the alien intelligence that created the DNA code, and... I guess.... planted the DNA 'seed' here on Earth to grow and cover the planet, they their own existence did not require DNA, or then we have to ask where they came from, and how their DNA code came from nothing.

It's a chicken and egg problem, all over again.

 

[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?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.

Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.

Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.

A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.

But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.

There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.

Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.

So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing

LOL. "Coming from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution. That's separate.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The idea that any DNA code, can come into existence, and have a meaning, without a superior intelligence to create that code... is intellectually dishonest.
.

No- just because you refuse to believe it can- doesn't make it intellectually dishonest.

But meanwhile- that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[abu afak]

There went NOTHING anDelusion, except hours of Cherry-picking by you,, finding ie, One article here or there that disagrees with the great MAJORITY of evidence/opinion...
or using just one Skeleton per Proto-human AS IF That's the Only one of the type that scientists used for mock ups.
A Lie.

You also left out, ie, more recent Homo Erectus, of which he have Many Fossil skeletons as well.

homo erectus - Google Search​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

Or the most RECENT Find: Homo Naledi.

NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the Face, Skull, and Teeth show enough Modern features to justify
H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo.
Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and apelike shoulders for climbing.
But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

WHO DAT?
Man or Ape?

and again, We Have anatomical Vestiges of our Ancestors (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx/Tail) which only COMMON DESCENT explains. As do Other species, and all their [millions of] transitional ancestors/fossils.

You also Totally WHIFFED/Got PORKED on 'Theory', committing the usual Kweationist BLUNDER/abuse of the word which WRECKS your whole Fallacy that 'theory' is only a guess.
NO ANSWER.
+

I cited the latest articles from the most up-to-date research coming from the scientific community.You cited out dated myths and legends, and now you've blindly restated the same obsolete information that has been proven wrong by my citations of the latest information.
In other words, you have rejected valid science, to hold onto your disproved myths.
You have successfully identified yourself as anti-science, and no longer have any credibility in this discussion.

I gave you that one chance to prove you could logically and intelligently argue, and discuss new information, to show you were open minded. Instead you have proven yourself closed, and dogmatic, without any ability to move forward with truth in a rational manor.

Well, thanks for that chat. But I have dismissed you from this discussion. Since I know a closed minded bigot won't quit talking when he has clearly been beaten, then I will cease responding to the endless prattle of posts I know is coming.

For the sake of others here that will suffer reading your nonsense, I do hope you do grow up to a more mature person, who can discuss things more rationally in the future. But I won't be seeing you again. Good bye. Best to you.

You're Lying again Kweationist Klown.
I cited THEE Latest research and Finds (September 2015).. as well as what you DISHONESTLY Omitted.
You had NO Answers you DISHONEST Kweationcyst.
No answers to Simple queries, "WHO DAT, Man or Ape", NO answer to 'Theory', NO answer to anatomical Vestiges.
YOU LOSE again Kwist Kweationst Klown.
Mebbe try AnswersInGenecyst.
+

 

[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.

You're going to heaven? Where's your empirical evidence?

It's all around us. Everything the Bible says that can be researched empirically, has come out to be true. Thus the credibility can be extended to all the rest of what the Bible says.

Except of course- there is no evidence that the Bible's origin myth is true.

None at all.

There is not one thing from Genesis that has been proven true.

Hittites? One of the 'they didn't exist' people in Genesis

Hittites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now considered a proven fact.

There is tons of evidence of the great flood.

There is also the fact that nearly all of the ancient civilizations around the world, had the flood, often in very similar detail, as part of their historic legends.

Which we would expect if all the peoples came from the family of Noah.

For many decades, science suggested that different races of humans, came from different evolutionary paths, while the Bible said we all came from Adam and Eve. Today, DNA science shows us there is only one human race.

Another would be the existence of so many differing languages, from people groups that were / are in close proximity. Why would people who obviously engaged in regular trade with each other, develop completely different languages, that made dealing with each other more difficult? Especially since in all recent time, this has resulted in people learning each other's languages.

Of course the tower of babel, where the languages were confused, means we would expect people to have completely different languages.

So, not sure about your claim that "nothing" has been proven.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing, and grew to something else, which grew to something else, and eventually over the magic of time and chance, we're now humans.

Micro Evolution, is really the idea of adaptation, where you take a fruit fly, and gradually over hundreds of generations, lower the humidity level, to well below where they naturally thrive, and if you do this slowly enough, the fruit flies will adapt until they are able to survive in low humidity.

Most of those who think that evolution is supported by the "evidence" often are really showing support for adaptation. For example, the prior post talking about 'Anatomical vestiges'. These do not support evolution, by any stretch of ones imagination. What is shows is adaptation, where a particular function was no longer needed in a given environment, and thus was lost.

A true support of evolution would come from showing an animal which needed a NEW function, and gain a third eye, or something like that.

But no such example throughout all human scientific history can be found. In fact, DNA that is lost, can't be remade. When they did the research on the fruit flies, they tried to bring the humidity back up, but the flies all died. The DNA that was lost, which allowed them to function in a low humidity environment, did not magically come back, when they moved them back up to a humid environment.

There is no known biological method for adding any information to DNA.

Even then, adaptation has limits. No matter how far an adaptation can go in allowing an organism to survive by adapting to a different environment, there is at concrete limit to how far that can go. This idea that you can evolve into anything, is not supported by the evidence. That somehow, you can just have a fruit fly adapt endlessly, until they are able to live in any environment... not true. There are limits to how far adaptation can go.

So while there is tons of evidence that supports adaptation, there is none, none whatsoever that supports evolution.

Macro Evolution is the concept that something came from nothing

LOL. "Coming from nothing" has nothing to do with evolution. That's separate.
Introduction to Human Evolution | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The idea that any DNA code, can come into existence, and have a meaning, without a superior intelligence to create that code... is intellectually dishonest.
.

No- just because you refuse to believe it can- doesn't make it intellectually dishonest.

But meanwhile- that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

If you think that the DNA code, which is millions of times more complex, than the most detailed man-made code, was created by nothing.... it is 100% intellectually dishonest. Belief has nothing to do with it. A code, does not self-create. By definition, it must be created. To claim otherwise, is more a leap of blind irrational faith, than me believing in a creator.

And yes, it has everything to do with evolution. Name me something you claim evolved, that didn't use a DNA code. When you can answer that, we'll talk.