Creation vs Evolution

Started by inimalist221 pages

JIA: in your expert opinion, does the theory of evolution as it stands today require macroevolution?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Again ignoring what you asked for.

No, I am en route to Alaska by scooter to observe macroevolution.

scooter (switches to boat)

boat

JIA, if you think small changes are possible, why not large changes? If species can evolve, but not evolve into other species, how does that work? There isn't any law of nature that states that one species can't evolve into another. There is only one rule: SURVIVE OR DIE. If you have to grow a couple of extra legs to survive, then you do it or die.

Sorry if it is kind of obvious but I was starting to doubt that you knew it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did see anything for me to read inimalist.

well, for instance:

evolution is a science because we can make predictions, run experiments, and observe results

creation or god is not because there are no predictions from the theory. Since it is impossible to think of evidence that would disprove God, it cannot be a valid scientific theory.

even if we ignore all the facts that "support" either side, the simple philosophy behind what you believe disqualifies it from ever being a science by definition. For a theory that is untestable to become science would require a redefinition of the subject on every level and would make what is now considered scientific experimentation (which has given you things as wonderful as the computer you use) impossible, again, because to find out what we know we had to test it, thus, we had to know what evidence would disprove our theory.

Originally posted by inimalist
JIA: in your expert opinion, does the theory of evolution as it stands today require macroevolution?

I am not an expert in anything, but for evolution to work there must be macroevolution or the whole kitten kaboodle is the greatest hoax of psuedoscience ever to hit this planet like a meteor.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not an expert in anything, but for evolution to work there must be macroevolution or the whole kitten kaboodle is the greatest hoax of psuedoscience ever to hit this planet like a meteor.

Not true at all.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not an expert in anything, but for evolution to work there must be macroevolution or the whole kitten kaboodle is the greatest hoax of psuedoscience ever to hit this planet like a meteor.

What if I told you that all evolutionary scientists would agree with you when you say that "macroevolution doesn't exist"? (probably not all, but certainly those who study genes).

Originally posted by Quark_666
JIA, if you think small changes are possible, why not large changes? If species can evolve, but not evolve into other species, how does that work? There isn't any law of nature that states that one species can't evolve into another. There is only one rule: SURVIVE OR DIE. If you have to grow a couple of extra legs to survive, then you do it or die.

Sorry if it is kind of obvious but I was starting to doubt that you knew it.

Can you grow another leg (or evolve anything physical) in order to survive? Can't you see how foolish this sounds?

Originally posted by inimalist
What if I told you that all evolutionary scientists would agree with you when you say that "macroevolution doesn't exist"? (probably not all, but certainly those who study genes).

I would say that I concur with you.

ok, so then would you believe the statement that "Evolution is possible without macroevolution"?

and if not, why?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not true at all.

At all true--not? (pretty cool how I rearranged you words huh?)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, I am en route to Alaska by scooter to observe macroevolution.

scooter (switches to boat)

boat

Great I just sent the biggest a$$ of all time to my home state. Better call and warn them.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can you grow another leg (or evolve anything physical) in order to survive? Can't you see how foolish this sounds?
What about animals that change their gender based on the environment?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
At [b]all true--not? (pretty cool how I rearranged you words huh?) [/B]

Dude, what are you smokin this time?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so then would you believe the statement that "Evolution is possible without macroevolution"?

and if not, why?

Microevolution has been observed (i.e. variation among different species, you know all the varieties of cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc.)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Microevolution has been observed (i.e. variation among different species, you know all the varieties of cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc.)

ok, but what scientists have found is that over time in a constantly changing environment this variation can cause what we would call "species"

do you believe this?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Dude, what are you smokin this time?

I do not smoke.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but what scientists have found is that over time in a constantly changing environment this variation can cause what we would call "species"

do you believe this?

Personally? No.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Great I just sent the biggest a$$ of all time to my home state. Better call and warn them. What about animals that change their gender based on the environment?

Which animals? Bear in mind that you are not an animal--you are a human.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Microevolution has been observed (i.e. variation among different species, you know all the varieties of cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc.)
And what do you think all of these small changes would do over millions of years 😑

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Personally? No.

what prevents this from occurring?

ie, what stops the accumulation of variation in isolated populations before it would be different enough to be considered its own species?