Macroevolution examples

[Delta9 UK]

Yes, evolution does require faith. You are in severe error if you don'tr recognise that. It requires believe that all those bones in the ground had intermediate evolutionary offspring. It requires belief to come to the conclusion that the earth formed by a big band and life formed from non organic chemicals. You wern't there. You can't say for a fact it happened. Anything that cannot be observed with empirical science from the beggining to the end to establish the results is relegated to the area of belief.

I think the fossil record is great, it just doesn't agree with your flood myth. Oh well.

Again you fail to understand some of the core mechanisms of evolution.

You do realise that ALL species are pretty much intermediates. We are STILL EVOLVING the fossil record has plenty of evidence of this, plenty. We are all transitional forms.

Remember that classification is a human invention - we "invent" species - they don't exist in nature - nature doesn't compartmentalize things that way. This is an important concept.

We have observed speciation too (but you will just deny it anyway) and not in the lab - in the wild.

This is a total assumption based on your belief system. It's just total garbage. How do they know how old it is? carbon dating?? ha. Carbon dating can only be used up to about 100,000 years if I remember correctly.

Stop now before I hurt myself.

Of course it isn't carbon dating, only a Moron would think that.

Besides, carbon dating is really only useful for dead Carbon (why am I trying to explain this FFS??.....)

And I'll use answersingenesis as much as I want. Its just character assasination and it's an attempt to slander me and my resources of information to shut me down without even attempting to approach an argument.

LOL, you try and shoot down anything I say with answersfromgenesis - can't you see the irony of what you are saying here?

I'm approaching your argument HEAD-ON and the only evidence you supply is the "opinions" of Creationists - that's not science mate.

I don't care if you do or not. The four categories I mentioned are all according to evolutionists labeled junk dna, the earliest example being the pseudogenes by a asian scientist back in around1972.

evolution-ists don't exist. They are 'junk' DNA according to evolutionists who want to attack what they don't accept in modern science.

I suggest you learn more about these systems before you try arguing over what is and what isn't Junk DNA. Your definition was falsified and you just copy-pasted a response without understanding what you are arguing about.

You may have a degree in that stuff, but you're no mr. Crick.

I will ignore that as if it is the best you can do then good luck on your way out.

Do you have a degree in Genetics? Biochemistry? Microbiology?

If not then I would shut it if I were you. Insults won't help your case.

No it's not a fact. And you can't prove it. no else has. Even if they did make one so what. It only proves it can be created by intelligent design, nothing more. It reminds me of the deceptive
miller urey experiment.

Riiiiight, tell that to the thousands of scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff. I would love you to stand in front of my old Microbiology Dr and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

I'm happy with what I know - you keep kidding yourself.

Actually he's right by defenition evolution isn't even a theory.
When Darwin was alive he said that the lack of transitional fossils was the biggest weakness for his idea of evolution. But there was still a lot of work to be done in the field of archeology. But now after over a hundred years we have huge and huge amounts of bones, but there is virtually no intermediate fossils. Even Gould himself said that this was paleontologies "trade secret".

Rubbish - there are lots of these.

Besides we have already identified errors here....

Most people who believe in evolution are completely ignorant of this. The truth is there should be massive amounts of transitionary fossil. Where are they? I think they're asking the wrong question. Because they don't exist.

OK see attached Skull Pics for fun. This same point is getting boring now - it isn't a good argument for you to use.

You've exposed one of the biggest challanges to the lack of anthropologic evidence jamstigator. You're right the natural enviroment would waste away dead animal remains fairly quickly. Not too long ago, thousands and thousands of american bison were slaughtered accross the midwest and there bones left there to ...turn into fossils? No! they've deteriorated long long ago. But evolutionary theory doesn't factor in this equation.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that fossils form in the abscense of oxygen. They have to be covered quickly in order for that to happen. The formation and evidence of the fossil record and sedimentary layers fit wonderfully with a past worldwide flood. It doesn't fit with evolution. And don't try to say that a small percentage of carcasses were buried quickly somehow. Go bury up your grandmother and see if she's a fossil. The evidence just doesn't fit with evolution.

I don't even know where to begin with all that. There is so much BS in that couple of lines I could cry.

talk.origins newsgroup

The fossil record shows no such evidence and you are now deluding yourself with your own presupposition. You are so obsessed with the scriptures being accurate that you disregard ANY evidence to the contrary.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional â??simpleâ?? cell, is be worse than 1 in 10 to the 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. there are about 10 to the 80 power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would â??onlyâ?? amount to 10160 electrons.

There are no odds. That's the point. It's impossible. Some things have no posibility. This is one of them.

Yet, I'm using my cells right now and they work just great I suppose it must have been god then.....

vistigial organs are one of the most dangerous myths of evolution.

There you go again a "myth" isn't something that works in science - that's the realm of faith. Please don't try and mix the two - you are trying to bring science down to the level of creationism.

Humans do not have a tail! This is one of the oldest myths about evolution ever!


Here's another refutation from the very helpful and credible ANSWERS IN GENESIS ! website :

Embryonic development

It's neither helpful nor credible.

This is another false idea that has has been long used by evolutionists, but was proven a long time ago to be false :

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

Embryonic development

The ICR article attempts to explain the inverted eye "design" mainly on the basis of two points:
1) the photoreceptors are embedded in a layer of retinal pigment epithelial cells which perform important functions and
2) the photoreceptors have a very high metabolic rate which requires a good circulatory system to support them.

Both of these points are quite valid, to be sure. However, neither of them supports the "essential" nature of the inverted design.

Point 1 (the "need" for the epithelial cells to surround the receptors): It is quite possible, and would seem "natural" to any intelligent designer, to design the eye with a surface layer of receptors embedded in an epithelial layer just below that would provide the necessary supportive functions. Immediately below this would be the neural processing layers, out of the way of the light path. The olfactory system has the receptor ciliary portion of the cells on the surface of the nasal sensory epithelium and the neural portions buried below. The auditory system has the receptor hair cells on the upper surface of the basilar membrane surrounded by elaborate membrane systems and the neural portions buried below.

Point 2 (the "need" for an adequate circulatory supply): This is extremely puzzling. Most people who discuss the retina know that the light must pass through the nervous system on the way to the photoreceptors. But most people, including the authors of this note, ignore the fact that the light must also pass through the blood supply, the retinal blood vessels! The arteries and veins that supply the retina are also in the light path! This point renders the argument in the paper completely false. The capillary network in the pigment epithelial layer, so essential to photoreceptor function, must be derived from the blood vessels that lie in the light path. A far superior design would be as outlined above: Superficial photoreceptors underlain by a pigment epithelial layer and a rich blood supply underlain, in turn, by the retinal neural processing layers. The receptors would be the first elements in the light path, they would be surrounded by the proper supportive tissue, they would have a good circulatory supply, and they would still maintain close contact with the neural processing circuitry.

Delta9 UK Reviewed by Delta9 UK on 08-23-2007. Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5