4 ms·

> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. gen

> As for macro-evolution, there is a mountain of evidence including the genetic similarity, the geographic distribution of animals, the fossil record, etc. genetic similarity: When (if) you code, do you invent a new language for every project you do, or do you use the same toolset for several - if not all - of the things you do? Genetic similarity, as the use of a common genetic code for all known life, can be an argument for a creator. It simply depends on what assumptions you make - and this isn't rationalization any more than the mainstream interpretation is, it simply depends on what lens you use. geographic distribution: Most of that is just adaptation, with which I have no problem at all. (assuming I understand your argument correctly) fossil record: There are more "missing links" than there is a chain. We don't even have a nearly complete representation for the evolution that led to a few species known today, and there's even less evidence for the development of the larger features...

JDDunn9 13y ago
Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree. Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer? Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
  Toolset and category of thing you make. Of course an F1 and a 4x4 are more similar than an F1 and a jet. Or, because they were cut of from the mainland long ago and didn't spread. No need to invoke evolution here. Because the world wasn't created at once, but in 6 days. Again, this doesn't disprove anything. Macro-evolution is nothing but a hypothesis, without any (decisive/exclusive) evidence. I hope I don't sound sheepish, I'm just short on time... I hope you can address my answers again :)
  - JDDunn9 13y ago
    You can read more in-depth evidence in the book, "The Greatest Show on Earth. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. It's not even debated among biologists. If you have some evidence against it (or for creation), submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you can throw evolution into question, you'll win a nobel prize for sure.

JDDunn9 13y ago

Genetic similarity is more precise than a generic toolset. We can tell relationships based on how similar their genes are (assuming you don't deny paternity tests). Genetic evaluation tells us that dogs are 100% descendant from wolves, not wolves and coyotes like previously thought. Genes also tell us that we are distant cousins to chimps. Genes are passed on through descendants and you can trace genes back through their family tree. Animals on islands are completely unique. That's because they've been cut off from the mainland for millions of years and evolved completely differently. 100% of the mammals native to Australia are marsupials (excluding bats which can fly), and 100% of all marsupials are native to Australia, evolution took a different branch there. Galapagos and Madagascar also have animals that are very different, but they are most similar to the animals closest the island, and those animals are most similar to the animals geographically close to them. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete (as we should expect), but it completely supports evolution. If you want to disprove evolution, find a single mammal fossil below the Devonean layer. Find a single human fossil that is 10 million+ years old. Why do we see the progression in the fossil record at all? Why are there no vertebrates beyond a certain layer? Macro-evolution is what happens when micro-evolution has millions of years. They aren't as distinctly different as you seem to think.

TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
Toolset and category of thing you make. Of course an F1 and a 4x4 are more similar than an F1 and a jet. Or, because they were cut of from the mainland long ago and didn't spread. No need to invoke evolution here. Because the world wasn't created at once, but in 6 days. Again, this doesn't disprove anything. Macro-evolution is nothing but a hypothesis, without any (decisive/exclusive) evidence. I hope I don't sound sheepish, I'm just short on time... I hope you can address my answers again :)
- JDDunn9 13y ago
  You can read more in-depth evidence in the book, "The Greatest Show on Earth. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. It's not even debated among biologists. If you have some evidence against it (or for creation), submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you can throw evolution into question, you'll win a nobel prize for sure.