4 ms·
Evolution can be further classified into "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evidence for microevolution is directly observable (e.g. bacteria adapting to ch
by boneheadmed 13y ago
Evolution can be further classified into "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evidence for microevolution is directly observable (e.g. bacteria adapting to changes of nutrients in their environment, viruses adapting to vaccines). However macroevolution has never been directly observed. It is extrapolated from considering what occurs after a multitude of generations of microevolution. An interesting new documentary examines this in more detail: http://evolutionvsgod.com/ http://evolutionvsgod.com/
- alayne 13y agoA "documentary" about evolution by a televangelist. Give me a break.
- boneheadmed 13y agoYes. Three evolutionary scientists are interviewed and are asked to give examples of directly observable evidence of macroevolution.
- Tichy 13y agoHave you observed god creating a new species?
- boneheadmed 13y agoGod created everything in existence. We refuse to acknowledge it, because by doing so we have to come to terms with his moral law. This moral law is embedded in our conscience and becomes clear through an examination of the conscience. For example things like lying and stealing (which if we are honest most of us have done either or both at one time or another), become heavy burdens when examined in the light of our consciences. In denying God, we can deny our own conscience and then create our own morality.
- rdouble 13y agoIs this really the direction this website is headed? The NSA conspiracy stuff was bad enough.
- AlisdairO 13y agoYou didn't answer the question.
- ghsalazar 13y agoGreat claims require great evidence. Prove God existence. Show us reproducible facts of God existence. Disclaimer: I'm a christian, but I know that God existence is just an assumption that I have made on faith, and it can't be verified nor disproved, because it isn't testable. It isn't scientific knowledge.
- alayne 13y agoRay Comfort is a well-known crackpot who uses deceptive tactics to push his b.s.
- justinpombrio 13y agoNo, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over time (and occasionally branched off or went extinct). If this weren't the case, scientists wouldn't believe in macroevolution either.
- boneheadmed 13y agoThe appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So too, animal and plant species appear to be directly related to other prior species populations. But the connection is only in the mind of the Creator.
- justinpombrio 13y agoWhy then did the Creator seem to largely "start over" after large extinction events? Surely he didn't forget what he knew simply because an asteroid hit the Earth. Now that you have put forward a theory, the proper thing to do is evaluate its usefulness. The most useful theories are easily falsifiable: it is easy to imagine scenarios in which they fail. For instance, if any of the planets followed a square orbit, Kepler's laws of planetary motion would be pretty much kaput. Under what situation would you consider it clear that our planet's species' evolution did not follow the mind of the Creator?
- sandman223 13y agoAt this point, the molecular/genetic evidence for common descent is pretty unassailable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
- boneheadmed 13y agoExamining the Earth, stars including the sun, living organisms and all that there is in front of us, makes it plainly known that there is a Creator.
- alexk7 13y agoWhat you call "microevolution" is simply adaptation. It has nothing to do with evolution (that you call "macroevolution"). Evolution is the logical outcome of random mutations over a long period of time: 1) Random mutations 2) Survival rate increases for some 3) Evolution This is so simple and so beautiful at the same time. The only thing you can contest is the existence of random mutations. I think the incredible diversity in our own species is enough proof.
- ghsalazar 13y agoEvolution is a scientific theory; that means that 1. It's based on facts, like: 1. Mutation, that you can see mutations everyday, from a microrganism to a whale. 2. The natural selection, that can you also can see everyday. 2. Its predictions can be tested. 1. For example with help of genetics. 3. It's falsifiable, that means you can try to build a test to refute the theory, but this test must be fact based. Creationism isn't a scientific theory because you can't bring the facts. Show reproducible facts and then we can discuss.