Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[rojse]

Precision and accuracy are two different terms used in measurement.

Accuracy is how close a set of results comes to the real measurement.
Precision is how close the set of results are to eachother.

I would analagise this two throwing a set of darts. Let's say I have two darts. I throw a dart one hundred metres left of a target, and the other dart one hundred metres right. The average of the two darts is right on the target, but the darts are two hundred metres apart. My throws, as an average, were accurate, but imprecise.

If I throw two darts one hundred metres left of the target, and they are both within a centimetre of eachother, the throws, on average, were inaccurate, missing the target by one hundred metres, on average, but precise, because they were close together.

 

[yossarian22]

Precision and accuracy are two different terms used in measurement.

Accuracy is how close a set of results comes to the real measurement.
Precision is how close the set of results are to eachother.
I would analagise this two throwing a set of darts.

Oh really? I never knew:sarcastic
What does this have to do with anything?

 

[rojse]

The two were being used in the wrong context. I thought I would clarify.

 

[yossarian22]

And a scientist 100 years from now can also go back and recreate all analysis in support of evolution. Fossils are not destroyed by their examination; anyone can look at species "A" and compare its pelvis to species "B" any number of times. Even if a portion of a fossil has been taken for radiometric dating, the rest of the fossil remains for testing at a later date.

Right, but not be able to recreate the data set USED for the analysis

Also, for the foreseeable future, it's quite possible (albeit a major undertaking, though no harder than building a honkin' big particle accelerator) for an independent observer to collect his or her own specimens of species "A" and "B".

Getting more individual fossils has never been a problem. DO you still not understand the difference between a fossil and the fossil record? You cannot get another version of the latter on earth.

Edit: BTW, you do have a very large number of fossil records. Each species can be thought of as the base of its own "sub-tree" in the "tree of life", and can be analysed accordingly.

THe fossil record of a species is not The Fossil Record (a collection of every fossil placed in chronological order)

Also, it does seem to be an odd position to take to effectively say, "I don't care how big your pile of evidence is, as long as it's only one pile."

You can make it sound less odd as "I do not care how much evidence from one experiment supports your position because it is just one experiment"

Please decide on the point you're trying to make. You've first put forward a scenario where a person would have to look for many lifetimes to determine that there are both white and black swans, and now you seem to be claiming that a cursory examination can demonstrate that all swans are white.

My point was that prior knowledge does not effect the experiment. My main point is that the entire picture (in this case the swan population) cannot be seen as a whole. We only see chunks of it, which are susceptible to randomness, which is why it is best to take as many chunks as possible, something which cannot be done with evolution.
[/quote]
(BTW: I know it's not necessary for your analogy, but there is at least one black swan in Stratford, Ontario, Canada. I saw it first-hand)[/quote]
A species in Australia is almost entirely black. The ones that are not a bit greyish.

Unless you have some sort of gas analysis apparatus that runs on coin flips, it certainly seemed like you were trying to draw a general conclusion for all observations.

1% accounts for human error in a wide variety of observations. I have never heard of an experiment which threw out its hypothesis based off of a 1% margin of error.

Exactly - and as a consequence, a Newtonian-style experiment that gets 1% deviation due to relativistic effects would be considered to be support for the idea that Newton's Laws work exactly, even at relativistic speeds. This conclusion is incorrect.

This conclusion depends on your equipment's margin of error and to the extent at which human interface is required. IF you have equipment that measures things down to 1% and have 0 human error, then this conclusion is wrong. I have never heard of equipment this accurate.

Again, you do know the difference between precision and accuracy, right? If two machines give identical results, it just means they were built the same and were designed on the same principles. The fact that no screws have come loose on one of them doesn't mean that the underlying theory behind the apparatus is sound. If the principles on which they were based are incorrect, then the results will be wrong. Perhaps consistently wrong, but still wrong.

We have analyzed known mixtures hundreds of times with these machines and are correct every time.

Change it to "any organism on Earth" and it sounds quite provable, and what evolutionary science is in the business of figuring out. If you leave it as you wrote it, our infinite universe may make it difficult to confirm that evolutionary theory applies to all organisms.

If something is proved, it is a fact. "Any organism on Earth" is not a fact because we cannot test at all points of time, and the hypothesis limits the area of space to do tests, so it will not, and never be a fact in the purest sense of the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but not be able to recreate the data set USED for the analysis

Same goes for medicine. You will never be able to use the same trial groups for a re-do of some double-blind study. Is MEDICINE not science?

Getting more individual fossils has never been a problem. DO you still not understand the difference between a fossil and the fossil record? You cannot get another version of the latter on earth.

THe fossil record of a species is not The Fossil Record (a collection of every fossil placed in chronological order)

No, of course not. However, I don't see why this is such a mental barrier for you.

You can make it sound less odd as "I do not care how much evidence from one experiment supports your position because it is just one experiment"

I assume by "less odd", you mean "misleadingly wrong".

Doing many, many experiments to determine the nature of both the fossil record and the history of life on Earth is not a single experiment, no more than 500 trials of some drug would be "one experiment" just because all the test subjects were drawn from the same Earthly population of humans, and no more than the entire body of atmospheric science could be considered "one experiment" because it was all on the same atmosphere.

My point was that prior knowledge does not effect the experiment. My main point is that the entire picture (in this case the swan population) cannot be seen as a whole. We only see chunks of it, which are susceptible to randomness, which is why it is best to take as many chunks as possible, something which cannot be done with evolution.

And my point is that by manipulating the scenario (i.e. by stating that the black swan is found last), you're making it non-random. In the real world, every white swan you find decreases the probability that the guy saying that there's one black swan (who has never actually seen it himself, mind you) is right.

1% accounts for human error in a wide variety of observations. I have never heard of an experiment which threw out its hypothesis based off of a 1% margin of error.

If you consider a land surveying traverse to be an experiment, 1% error is 30 times too much.

This conclusion depends on your equipment's margin of error and to the extent at which human interface is required. IF you have equipment that measures things down to 1% and have 0 human error, then this conclusion is wrong. I have never heard of equipment this accurate.

You presented a scenario where a person had to count 100,000,000,000 swans by himself, and now you're worried about practicality?

We have analyzed known mixtures hundreds of times with these machines and are correct every time.

No, they're consistent every time. To determine whether they're correct, you need some sort of independent corroboration.

If something is proved, it is a fact. "Any organism on Earth" is not a fact because we cannot test at all points of time, and the hypothesis limits the area of space to do tests, so it will not, and never be a fact in the purest sense of the word.

We can make direct observations and all sorts of tests on any organism currently living that can provide some insight and evidence for their ancestry. We can make a smaller (but still significant) number of tests and examinations of fossils and other remnants of deceased life. From all of these, we can (similarly to criminal forensics)draw inferences about the early life that didn't fossilize well (due to lack of hard body parts) from all the other evidence we've gathered.

 

[yossarian22]

Same goes for medicine. You will never be able to use the same trial groups for a re-do of some double-blind study. Is MEDICINE not science?

Who says we needs to use the same trial groups? It is not needed, and results would be similar if the medicine actually works.

No, of course not. However, I don't see why this is such a mental barrier for you.

Because you have, essentially, a large amount of data from only one experiment. We cannot make more fossil records currently.

I assume by "less odd", you mean "misleadingly wrong".
Doing many, many experiments to determine the nature of both the fossil record and the history of life on Earth is not a single experiment, no more than 500 trials of some drug would be "one experiment" just because all the test subjects were drawn from the same Earthly population of humans, and no more than the entire body of atmospheric science could be considered "one experiment" because it was all on the same atmosphere.

Once agian, the fossil record is analogous to getting a data set from one experiment, they are not the same in any other way.
Can you recreate the fossil record as many times as you wish? Nope.
Can you recreate clinical trials of medicine as many times as you wish? Yes, barring some massive change in human physiology.

And my point is that by manipulating the scenario (i.e. by stating that the black swan is found last), you're making it non-random. In the real world, every white swan you find decreases the probability that the guy saying that there's one black swan (who has never actually seen it himself, mind you) is right.

That is the point of a scenario. This situation is very unlikely, which is the point of the exercise. It is possible for more data to mislead us, which is why we must take as many chunks as possible of the greatest possible size to reduce the likelihood of being fooled by randomness.

If you consider a land surveying traverse to be an experiment, 1% error is 30 times too much.

Never heard of it or if it could be considered an experiment.

You presented a scenario where a person had to count 100,000,000,000 swans by himself, and now you're worried about practicality?

Its a scenario. It is not supposed to be practical or realistic.

No, they're consistent every time. To determine whether they're correct, you need some sort of independent corroboration.

It can determine the mixture of gases whose content we already know consistently. It is correct for all known gases and subsequent mixtures.

We can make direct observations and all sorts of tests on any organism currently living that can provide some insight and evidence for their ancestry. We can make a smaller (but still significant) number of tests and examinations of fossils and other remnants of deceased life. From all of these, we can (similarly to criminal forensics)draw inferences about the early life that didn't fossilize well (due to lack of hard body parts) from all the other evidence we've gathered.

You fail to understand that not only can evolution never be a fact, but NOTHING can ever be a fact. It would require experiments to be run at every point in space (we would have to construct at speeds faster then light in all directions for us to be able to manage this) and at every point in time. It is impossible for anything to be a fact in the purest sense of the word.

 

[andys]

Rojse, I enjoyed your well argued reply to roserian22. Whenever I read such statements as the following, I can only shake my head in disbelief:

"There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Evolution has merely not been disproved, it has yet to be confirmed."

"You fail to understand that not only can evolution never be a fact, but NOTHING can ever be a fact."

These are dangerous misconceptions because they call into question more than the factual status of the Theory of Evolution itself. They reveal a common confusion regarding the level of certainty that a Scientific Theory enjoys.

I attribute this confusion largely to workings of the religious mind, where beliefs in "absolutes" and "divine truth" whirl about. As I have been arguing in another thread regarding Science vs Religion, we do not see other equally established theories under attack that explain Gravity, Electricity, Atoms, etc. Why not?

Because these theories do not pose a threat to the credibility of a religion. This "debate" is nothing more than a religious propaganda machine busy at work trying to destroy a perceived foe. Opposition to Evolutionary theory is simply the backlash of a self-interested religious group whose agenda to maintain their religion's guise of credibility and authority.

The more we debate with this minority, the more we appear to be assigning credibility to their incredulous position. But we have little alternative.

After all, they are an aggressive lot whose agenda extends well beyond winning this argument. The want to infiltrate the public education system and have Creationist poppycock taught as an "alternative theory".

The harmful message that this sends to our children is that unfounded speculations can be assigned the same merit as an established Scientific Theory. Both are just "theories" after all and they have an equal right to be heard. Frightening.

Anyway, Rojse, keep up the articulate posts!

 

[yossarian22]

Rojse, when I read such ignorant, ill-informed statements as the following, I can only shake my head in disbelief:

"There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Evolution has merely not been disproved, it has yet to be confirmed."

Correct. It does not mean it is wrong, but do not tout it as fact. Objectivity is supposed to be a big part of science

"You fail to understand that not only can evolution never be a fact, but NOTHING can ever be a fact."
Such incorrect outbursts are very dangerous. Not only is the Theory of Evolution being called into question, but the entire process that allowed it to exist, the Scientific Method!

Nothing can ever be a fact in the purest sense of the word.

This confusion about the high degree of certainty that a Scietific Theory enjoys offers insight into the workings of the religious mind, where belief in "absolutes" and "divine truth" whirl about. As I have been arguing in another thread regarding Science vs Religion, we do not see Gravity, Electricity, Atoms, or other established theories called into question. Why not?

Because we have actually observed the previous theories. Atoms have plenty of indirect evidence going for it, I have already differentiated between circumstantial and indirect evidence. Electricity is a subdivision of the atomic theory and is still more supported by indirect evidence. Gravity is also supported by indirect evidence. Read the thread, I have already pointed out the differences.

Because these theories do not pose a threat to the credibility of the religion. This "debate" is nothing more than the religious propaganda machine at work trying to destroy its perceived foe. Its "alternative theory" is only the product of a self-interested agenda to maintain its guise of credibility and authority.

Yes because I am really a religious nut job in hiding. You have found me out.

The more we debate with them more we contribute to the credibility that guise. But we have little alternative.

If you can poke a hole in my argument, go ahead.

They are an aggressive lot whose agenda extends well beyond winning this argument. The want to infiltrate the public education system and have this poppycock taught as an "alternative theory".

Again you have found me out. My agenda is to get prayer back in school and make being <religion here> mandatory.

The dangerous message that this sends to our children is that an unfounded speculation should be assigned as much merit as an established Scientific Theory. Both are just "theories" after all. Frightening.

Jesus Christ! Please tell me you did not just pull the "Think about the Children!" bit here.
I only want to ask you one thing.
Where have I ever said that I believe evolution as a theory is wrong?

 

[andys]

Before I respond, I need to inform you that I was editing my Quick Reply while you were responding to it! Readers may be think you misquoted me, which is not the case. I wish that this web site could hide a posting while it is being edited. Sorry for any confusion this may have created. (As you will see, I toned it down a notch.)

Now to answer your question, "Where have I ever said that I believe evolution as a theory is wrong?" My answer: Nowhere. What gave you that idea? What you wrote in your previous post to Rojse:

"You fail to understand that not only can evolution never be a fact, but NOTHING can ever be a fact."

My reply was this:

"These are dangerous misconceptions because they call into question more than the factual status of the Theory of Evolution itself. "

In other words, you are wrong if you think Evolution is not a fact. It IS a FACT. Whether you happen to think Evolution is false, I won't know unless you tell me. I hope this answers your question.

Now, let me provide a quote from National Geographic magazine (Nov. 2004) which devoted a cover article to Evolution and facts:

"If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that the Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa...is a theory. Continental drift is just a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atom? Atomic Theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observations and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact."

If you still wish to deny that there are facts, please take it up with the Scientific community.

 

[yossarian22]

Now to answer your question, "Where have I ever said that I believe evolution as a theory is wrong?" My answer: Nowhere. What gave you that idea?

You response seemed to be directed solely at me.

What you wrote in your previous post to Rojse:
"You fail to understand that not only can evolution never be a fact, but NOTHING can ever be a fact."
My reply was this:
"These are dangerous misconceptions because they call into question more than the factual status of the Theory of Evolution itself. "

It is a dangerous misconception to view ANYTHING as a fact. If you view anything as a fact, you have lost objectivity.

In other words, you are wrong if you think Evolution is not a fact. It IS a FACT. Whether you happen to think Evolution is false, I won't know unless you tell me. I hope this answers your question.

Lets see.

"If you are skeptical by nature

Its like they knew me my whole life.

,unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory.

And you lost me. I know of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence for evolution. I have yet to see any experiments which even indirectly hint at species undergoing massive physiological changes.

In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory.

Supported heavily by indirect evidence.The notion that the Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa...is a theory.[/quote]
Nope. We have been to space. We KNOW that the Earth orbits around the sun. This is like saying the Earth is round is a theory.

Continental drift is just a theory.

Plenty of indirect evidence for continental drift.

The existence, structure, and dynamics of atom? Atomic Theory.

Once again supported by indirect evidence from experimentation

Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen.

Supported by a plethora of indirect evidence. I'm getting a bit tired of typing that sentence over and over again.

Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observations and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact."

Knowledgeable experts are not using fact in the truest sent of the word- a constant.

If you still wish to deny that there are facts, please take it up with the Scientific community.

I will continue to deny that there are facts in the truest sense of the word. By all means, say "fact" instead of "Constant here on earth in all observable events which have been observed at the current point of time at which the observation was made" if the latter was to much of a mouthful. But do not tout something as a fact because to do so is to lose objectivity as a scientist.

 

[rojse]

I am at a loss as to how the idea of evolution can be debated on a logical basis.

This is a simple logical argument that I see is the basis of the idea of evolution. Please state which of the following statements you think are not true:

1. Not all animals of a generation of species live to be able to breed, due to lack of resources and/or predators.
2. Out of the animals that manage to survive despite limited resources and predators, those that survived were best suited for their local environment.
3. Animals that breed may pass on the traits that made them successful for their environment.
4. The newly hatched species start from point one.

Please state which of those points are logically incorrect, and why this is so. If you agree with all of these points, then evolution must be at work.

 

[rojse]

How can we "prove" macro evolution to your standards? We have proved micro evolution numerous times, I am sure that even you would agree. Look at the different crop species of corn, or dogs, or horses. All of those species, both plant and animal, underwent significant micro-evolution changes, so much so that the end products are barely recognisable to eachother, and the end product is significantly different to the parental species.

Macro evolution is no different to micro evolution, except on the timeframe of which it works, and, resulting from this extended timeframe, the significance of changes.

Macro evolution does not happen at a timescale which we can sit around and watch. It happens over millions of years, incorporating thousands of generations of a single species. In fact, if it were to be a process that occured over a few generations, whcih we could monitor, we would be forced to discard the theory of evolution, because this is the exact opposite of what evolution predicts.

There are many ways that evolution could be disproved, that could be reasonably expected of God, should he exist. Spontaneous creation of a complex creature, for example. Massive changes of a species over a singled generation. If we found complex fossils when we knew that there were only simple creatures, and there was no link to them. There are other examples that I could give to disprove the Theory of Evolution, but these will suffice for now.

You are holding your standard of proof for this at an unreasonably high level. There is a difference between debating facts on a logical basis, and questioning the validity of an idea, and just being obstinate and argumentative in the face of a multitude of facts.

 

[yossarian22]

How can we "prove" macro evolution to your standards?

You cannot prove anything to my standards because my standard makes a proof impossible.

We have proved micro evolution numerous times, I am sure that even you would agree. Look at the different crop species of corn, or dogs, or horses. All of those species, both plant and animal, underwent significant micro-evolution changes, so much so that the end products are barely recognisable to eachother, and the end product is significantly different to the parental species.

Which was NOT due to evolutionary changes, but changes due to selective breeding. Humans actively cross bred/pollinated all of those species to match our needs.

Macro evolution is no different to micro evolution, except on the timeframe of which it works, and, resulting from this extended timeframe, the significance of changes.

Yep, but you have not demonstrated a single piece of indirect or direct evidence for its existence, so the difference is there.

Macro evolution does not happen at a timescale which we can sit around and watch. It happens over millions of years, incorporating thousands of generations of a single species. In fact, if it were to be a process that occured over a few generations, whcih we could monitor, we would be forced to discard the theory of evolution, because this is the exact opposite of what evolution predicts.

Evolutionary theory makes no distinction about time. If a horse grew a second head due to a massive mutation (radiation maybe?), was not sterile, and the second head was of massive beneficence to the species, it is possible that a large scale change in a population could occur in a few generations.

You are holding your standard of proof for this at an unreasonably high level. There is a difference between debating facts on a logical basis, and questioning the validity of an idea, and just being obstinate and argumentative in the face of a multitude of facts.

Guess what? It is IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be a fact in the truest sense of the word. Use it as a substitute for "Constant in all observable events which have been observed at their respective points in time" if you wish.
Also, your methods of "disproving" macro-evolution do not work because once again, evolution makes no distinction about time. The appearance of a brand new species does not disprove evolution in the slightest. One can retort that it is possible for it to occur.
You can say "We did not wait long enough" until oblivion. Its like saying "At some point in time, we will be visited by a giant sentient handkerchief"

 

[painted wolf]

what exactly is "macro" evolution?

wa:do

 

[yossarian22]

what exactly is "macro" evolution?

wa:do

A species undergoing radical changes. From lizard to bird for instance

 

[andys]

REPLY toyossarian22:
I love to argue an issue, especially one related to religion. But there is no issue here. I am now in the tedious position of trying to educate someone about something that is common knowledge. I don't wish to sound condescending, but statements like the following, betray you:

"If you view anything as a fact, you have lost objectivity."

What? Strict objectivity is essential to the scientific method. A fact IS an objective observation.
It would save both of us some time and wear on the keyboard if you would just take a moment to research what is meant by the terms "fact" and 'theory" in the context of science. [I found a great web site for you to explore, but for some strange reason I can't share it with you until I earn a certain number of Brownie points Sigh. Some "educational" web site this is.] Well hunt around a bit... I'll wait!

All done? Good. Now you know that a (scientific) fact is an OBJECTIVE and verifiable observation. It represents the highest level of certainty that Man via the scientific community can hope to gain. Facts form the basis of Scientific Laws (e.g., Law of Gravity), which in turn form the foundation of Scientific Theories (e.g., General Theory of Relativity). Theories represent the highest level of complexity in scientific knowledge. All of these components (facts, laws, theories) are considered true beyond a reasonable doubt. But they DO allow for doubt. However, any challenge to one or more components of the scientific edifice must be very serious and able to withstand the full force of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, this painstaking process to advance Man's knowledge isn't rigorous enough for you. For you, nothing less than "absolute" certainty will do. But like Platonic forms, this kind of "divine" truth is (in reality) unattainable. In today's modern world, only a Christian, would think it is possible to attain.

Just for fun, let's take another look at your previous proclamation:

"I will continue to deny that there are facts in the truest sense of the word."

This sentence indicates your steadfast determination to hold out for those pure, absolute, (dare I say "divine") truths.
Hey, what's that I hear...
"They is out there by golly, I is just a waitin' fur 'em!"
Well, I wish you luck, but don't hold your breath.

 

[yossarian22]

REPLY toyossarian22:
I love to argue an issue, especially one related to religion. But there is no issue here. I am now in the tedious position of trying to educate someone about something that is common knowledge. I don't wish to sound condescending,

Yet you so often do.

but statements like the following, betray you:

"If you view anything as a fact, you have lost objectivity."

What? Strict objectivity is essential to the scientific method. A fact IS an objective observation.

It is not. A fact is a constant, an absolute, and can never be broken regardless of where/when you are. An observation is just that, an observation.

It would save both of us some time and wear on the keyboard if you would just take a moment to research what is meant by the terms "fact" and 'theory" in the context of science. [I found a great web site for you to explore, but for some strange reason I can't share it with you until I earn a certain number of Brownie points Sigh. Some "educational" web site this is.] Well hunt around a bit... I'll wait!

You think I do not know?

All done? Good. Now you know that a (scientific) fact is an OBJECTIVE and verifiable observation.

Your definition of fact is faulty.
Here I will give you a definition, an indisputable truth.
Bit redundant though.

It represents the highest level of certainty that Man via the scientific community can hope to gain. Facts form the basis of Scientific Laws (e.g., Law of Gravity), which in turn form the foundation of Scientific Theories (e.g., General Theory of Relativity). Theories represent the highest level of complexity in scientific knowledge. All of these components (facts, laws, theories) are considered true beyond a reasonable doubt. But they DO allow for doubt.

then it is not a fact, it is a theory. Furthermore, a law is not a fact, but as assumption. Newton's laws are assumptions.

However, any challenge to one or more components of the scientific edifice must be very serious and able to withstand the full force of the scientific method.

Mhmm:sleep:

Unfortunately, this painstaking process to advance Man's knowledge isn't rigorous enough for you. For you, nothing less than "absolute" certainty will do.

If it is not absolute, it is not a fact.

But like Platonic forms, this kind of "divine" truth is (in reality) unattainable. In today's modern world, only a Christian, would think it is possible to attain.

I was wondering what my faith was. Now you have cleared it up for me. I am a Christian now. Praise the Lord!

Just for fun, let's take another look at your previous proclamation:
"I will continue to deny that there are facts in the truest sense of the word."
This sentence indicates your steadfast determination to hold out for those pure, absolute, (dare I say "divine") truths.

No, I just hold to the definition of a fact.

Hey, what's that I hear...
"They is out there by golly, I is just a waitin' fur 'em!"
Well, I wish you luck, but don't hold your breath.

What the hell does the last bit have to do with anything.

And forgive me if I think much less of you after you pulled the "Think about the Children!" bit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You cannot prove anything to my standards because my standard makes a proof impossible.

Okay... so what's your actual position on evolutionary theory? That it's probably correct, but can't be "proven" due to the imperfection of the mechanisms by which humans acquire knowledge?

what exactly is "macro" evolution?

"Macro" evolution is what's left over when you take out "micro" evolution, which is the portion of evolutionary theory that opponents of evolution can't possibly pretend hasn't occurred and still be taken even slightly seriously, due to the overwhelming and obvious support for it.

It's an imaginary distinction. Really, there's just "evolution", no "macro" or "micro"... it's all the same thing.

 

[yossarian22]

Okay... so what's your actual position on evolutionary theory? That it's probably correct, but can't be "proven" due to the imperfection of the mechanisms by which humans acquire knowledge?

:yes:
Yep. I just have major problems with anybody view anything as a fact because it leads your horizons being locked

 

[rojse]

You would ask for such strenuous proof for evolution, but would accept the existence of God with not nearly so much rigorous, independent testing?