Messianic Israelite
Active Member
First of all, it is a misconception that macroevolution hasn't been observed.
Speciation is macro evolution and speciation most definitely has been observed.
But I'm guessing you are talking about macro on the scale of say the common ancestor of humans and chimps to humans and chimps, which is a process that took some 7 million years to unfold.
Yes, a process that took 7 million years, hasn't been observed.
However, that does not mean that we can't test it....
The idea that humans and chimps share ancestors makes LOADS of testable predictions. Predictions that can be tested TODAY. Predictions about anatomy, fossils, geographic distribution, genetics, ... even psychology.
Consider a murder that took place with nobody around to see it and out of side of camera's. All you have are a body, a knife stuck in the body's chest and a couple of clues at the crime scene (a footprint, perhaps a hair, some skin cells under the finger nails of the victim, etc).
You can't observe this murder. It already occured. So you have to piece together what happened based on the circumstantial evidence. That will be your hypothesis. It will be testable.
You pinpoint a suspect. You make predictions about DNA matching the cells under fingernails, the fingerprints on the knife matching the suspect's, the suspect not having a proper alibi, perhaps the suspect's phone records puts him / her at the scene, etc.
Just to show you: one does NOT necessarily require "observation" of events of the past, to figure out what happened in testable ways.
If that were the case, then NO CRIME that took place behind closed doors could ever be solved.
I'm sure you wouldn't even think about saying such a thing. I'm sure you realize that it's very much possible to piece together what happened merely from the evidence, without observing the actual crime itself. Right?
Preaching.
Hi TagliatelliMonster. Good afternoon. In terms of speciation, barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? No. Look at Eastern and Western Meadowlarks which are nearly identical, but do not mate. Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes (genons) with new information for new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”).
You say that the process of evolution from a common ancestor took about 7 million years. But where's the proof? And how can you with any certainty claim you know what happened millions of years ago when we do not know what happened a few thousand years ago?
In terms of the illustration that you have given about murder, and putting the pieces together to solve a crime. I, or indeed the Bible does not support the convicting of someone on circumstantial evidence. According to Yahweh's Law, you need to have a witness(es) or confession. Might I point out that a number of people have been put to death wrongfully by the death penalty because judges have been swayed by circumstantial evidence. Now apply this to yourself. If you are swayed by what evidence suggests but you have nothing truly observable, tangible, then you are likely to make a decision that is flawed and a death may occur which could be in this example your own. Lies will detract us from the Kingdom. The Word is called the truth for a reason (John 17:17).
I am curious though. You state that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relatives to humans, is non-existent. [ Source: Henry Gee, "Return to the Planet of the Apes" Nature, Vol 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131 ]
But let's explore the analogy you have given. What if you knew a judge who had convicted criminals to death previously, and had still kept his post, regardless of the fact that is came to light that some of those supposed criminals were innocent. We would call these miscarriages of justice, and I want to point out that sometimes the mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime. The mass media is on the side of evolution. Would you be inclined to favor that judges decisions for future convictions or would you approach with caution? And I say this because - and I shouldn't have to readdress this - of the many hoaxes down through history which some people still believe to this day support the theory of evolution. Take for example the famous Piltdown Hoax. It was in textbooks for over 40 years. Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Loius Leakey and others in to a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape. I mean I could go on. Either people have a very faulty memory, or they simply choose to believe in the lie.
Believing in the theory of evolution is one of the most prominent ways how one can deny belief in Yahweh, the Bible and taking the Bible literally and ultimately keeping His Laws. That's why I believe the theory has been embraced worldwide, not because it is well-evidenced because it isn't. The piles of evidence to support the theory is like Ramapithecus - it amounts to a handful of fragments and a lot of wishful thinking.