Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
1] Since micro-evolution is seen and provable in a lab, we have no issues with what we prefer to call more correctly, "adaptation". Calling both "evolution" is misleading. One does not prove the other at all. Adaptation is only ever observed within one taxonomic family of creatures. This just produces variety within that family. There is no real evidence that it has ever led to one family morphing into another.
Calling both evolution is
not misleading because both ARE evolution. You can make up personal definitions that only you like to follow, but those have no bearing on the science.
And this brings us ‘round again to the same thing that’s been plaguing you on this thread for some time. I’ve been waiting (as well as many others on the thread) for you to present any evidence whatsoever that would demonstrate that there is some barrier stopping small changes from turning into big changes over time. You keep making assertions that it’s impossible and yet you have, as of yet, produced not one shred of evidence backing up that assertion. Nor have you given any reason why you think it would be impossible, other than you apparently have to believe whatever you think the Bible tells you. And then you want to compare that to the scientific method, as though your personal musings are on par with rigorous scientific study. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly.
The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly.
There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also
evolution proof).
2] Macro-evolution cannot be 'observed', so it must be 'assumed'...but there is no other real evidence....just more assumption dressed up as fact.
Not sure how you came up with that, as it says nothing of the sort. Read it again, and when you do that, take note that it says “there is a very great deal of other evidence” and right beside it there is a link to a bunch of evidence. Not to mention all the previous evidence that has been provided for you on this thread – and it has been substantial. You could at least try to exercise some intellectual honesty here.
As biologists use the term,
macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level.
Speciation has been observed and documented.
3] "
Above the species level" is another way of saying that adaptation can only be observed within the species. Outside of that is pure guesswork.
Once again, you’ve failed to click on the imbedded link which would have taken you directly to a page with a bunch of EVIDENCE of speciation all over it and includes even more links to even more evidence.
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And
because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
4] The 'expectation' for what science is suggesting is just not there. "
microevolution implies macroevolution"......there it is! It is "implied" not observed and not testable. We can "imply" a lot of things too.
And here they point out the same thing I just pointed out, as well as many others on your thread. A point you have yet to address.
There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.
5] There are no "transitional forms" that show macro evolution has occurred at all. This is wishful thinking. You cannot get two completely different creatures that existed millions of years apart and assume relationship just because of a few similarities. Interpretation of the so-called evidence leads people to believe something that cannot be proven in any way.
There are, in fact, many transitional forms, which again you could have seen for yourself had you simply clicked on the embedded link. Your flat out denial of them is ludicrous. You need to stop cherry picking only what you want to see – that’s if you’re interested in obtaining actual knowledge on the subject, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."
Now this is hilarious! An "elaborate set of models and ideas" does not equate to proven fact. No matter how they argue their case, there is not the slightest bit of real evidence to demonstrate that macro-evolution ever took place except in their 'models and ideas'.
I don’t know how you can deny what is right in front of your face, practically spoon-fed to you.
It is a fact that evolution occurs. The only way to deny that fact is to ignore the evidence, which you seem to be quite adept in doing.
"Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life).
The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are
genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus,
universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences."
And here we go again......What does it mean to "postulate"? It is defined as to...... "suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."
Again, you’re only seeing what you want to. Try taking in the entire paragraph as a whole, rather than nitpicking individual words you don’t like. Keep reading past “postulate” and you’ll see that it says, “Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the “fact of evolution” by biologists which again, contains an embedded link explaining how evolution is both fact and theory.
"Cousins"?....meaning that we are somehow related to bananas......or that dinosaurs morphed into chickens?....do they mean that kind of "cousin"? "Common decent" is an assumption that has no business being called a "fact of evolution". There is no proof that common ancestors are even related.
Yes, we are distantly related to bananas, as all life on the planet is related to varying degrees. DNA analysis bears this out. Just as you are more closely related genetically to your parents than you are to your cousins and even less for more distant relatives as you go back in time, everything on the planet shares DNA depending on its degree of relatedness. You don’t deny that you are related to your parents, cousins and ancestors, do you? This is the basic concept we’re talking about, just on a grander scale.
“Think about your family. You and your closest relatives look more alike than you and your cousins. Likewise, you look more like your cousins than you do more distant relatives., and more like distant relatives than people on the other side of the globe. The closer you are related, by-and-large, the more similarities you share. Of course, these similarities extend well beyond the surface level, reaching into our genetics.
This patterning, like in your family, extends throughout all life on earth. The patterning of the similarities speaks volumes. In evolution, these “similarities” are known as “synapomorphies.” They are characteristics that are present in ancestral species and are shared exclusively (in more or less modified form) by this species evolutionary descendants. Synapomorphies come in nested hierarchies that are related to the variety and intensity of the similarities.
Why is this the case? The similarities have been inherited from common ancestors, and the further back in time any two species shared a common ancestor, the more faded and distant the similarities become. It is important to note that, species with a large number of similarities tend to live near each other – penguin species only live in the Southern Hemisphere, marsupials live almost exclusively in Australia, cacti almost exclusively in the Americas, lemurs in Madagascar, etc. If evolution was not true, this geographic patterning would make absolutely no sense. Furthermore, these similarities often seem to be completely arbitrary, rather than having some selective advantage.”
Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
And lastly I have to point out yet again (because for some reason you’re STILL repeating it), evolution doesn’t say that anything “morphs” into anything else or that dinosaurs gave birth to chickens. You really need to stop repeating this nonsense that has been corrected for you so many times it’s not funny anymore. Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
You guys really should read your own links. They provide so much more ammunition for our side than they ever do for yours. You see what you want to see in your so-called evidence.....we read between the lines to see what is "implied" in the language.
Calling something a fact, doesn't make it one.
I always read the links I provide. I would suggest you read them more closely than you apparently have. You’re fooling yourself if you think any of them provide evidence
against evolution. You’re the one who willfully denies evidence in favour of seeing what you want to see. You’re the one who has to force their worldview to be compatible with ancient writings in an old book.
If you want to deny common descent, then you will also have to deny that you are related to your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, etc. Accepting one, but not the other, doesn’t make much sense.
