Amazon.com Widgets

Is there any REAL evidence for Macroevolution? What evidence?

Asked by: Gamapo
  • Way more Reliable than Creationism

    You mock evolution with "little facts" that are WIDLEY accepted by the scientific community. They wouldn't accept it if they weren't darn near positive it was true. So you don't believe in macro-evolution, but you believe something 100% unprovable created everything- and there's a good chance you also believe in the other many things in the Bible that are utterly destroyed by the laws of physics. Science is not out to get you, Christians. They present facts.

  • By definition yes

    Macro evolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes
    Real: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
    http://www.Merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/macroevolution
    http://www.Merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/real
    By definition there is REAL evidence. We have seen change in creatures in the fossil records alone. Most importantly though is the fact that we can observe microevolution. And a simple way to look at is that macro evolution is just a bunch of micro evolutions. These articles should clear some things up.
    Http://www.Ijdb.Ehu.Es/web/paper.Php?Doi=14756327
    http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/comdesc/

  • The only difference between Macro and Micro Evolution is time

    Micro evolution is small changes over small periods of time. Macro evolution is just a long chain of micro evolutions, which amplify each other. Therefore, to have micro evolution without macro evolution is literally impossible, as they are the same thing. To differentiate Micro and Macro evolution show a distinct lack of understanding on the topic, and is intellectually dishonest. To say that Micro evolution is possible, but Macro evolution impossible, is comparable to saying in 1 second a car can travel 10 meters, but no matter how many long you leave it traveling 10 meters a second, it will never travel 10 kilometers.

  • On a biochemical level, all life on Earth is indistinguishable.

    To me, this points towards a common ancestor for all life. Just a few points:

    All organisms use the same four bases in their DNA. Not to mention most species' share large sections of their genomes with each other.

    Every organism discovered so far uses L-amino acids, even though D-amino acids work just as efficiently and are as available as the L-amino acids.

    All life is carbon-based, even though it could have theoretically been silicon-based.

    There's so many possible biochemical processes life could have used, but yet only one system is seen in all the organisms on Earth. This points to a single form of life arising from one particular biochemical process (say, L-amino acids), and then propagating itself before other organisms could evolve from the D-amino acids.

    There's also micro-evolution occurring right now that humans can see and record. And these are occurring within only a human lifespan. It's not crazy to think even grande changes could occur on a geological timescale, like the creation of a new species.

  • There is plenty of evidence.

    For first I do believe you are using the term macro-evolution incorrectly, while it is commonly used to describe large changes in animals (like a change of species) it is in reality a term used to describe the time frame involved, longer time frame's being macro-evolution.

    Because of this any evidence applying to micro-evolution (which there is plenty of) applies to macro-evolution, examples of this include the fossil record observed changes and DNA similarities in species.

  • None that i have found!

    I've gone through the fossil record, strata, carbon dating, and several other "profs" for Evolution and have found nothing that supports it. In fact many things that were at first pro evolution are now pro creationism! How does that work? I'm not finding anything for Evolution, so not only aught it be a hypothesis instead of a theory, not only should it not be taught as fact in our schools, but the pro macroevolution scientist are conducting bad science! They latch onto the tiny amount of "data" (aught to be assumptions) and then say its daft for a creationist to trust the truths and proofs!

  • Randomly typed letters don't yield poetry

    In my mind micro evolution means change via individual mutations of a genome. Macro evolution is one species evolving into another, or the development of complex organ systems, all through a long series of micro evolution events, or individual mutations. So I understand the concept of micro evolution and believe in genetic mutation, but it seems this would only yield tiny and primarily negative changes, like a spelling error in a written document. How random spelling errors amplified over time culminates in the biological equivalent to the complete works of Shakespeare is the question here, me thinks, and since nobody has been around to watch it happen, we can merely jump to the conclusion (perhaps wrongly?) that micro evolution drives these macro evolutionary changes. I personally have as hard a time believing in these giant leaps of complexity via random mutations as I do the god-waving-a-magic-wand theory. If anybody has a detailed example of how sexual reproduction evolved one accidental mutation at a time on a genetic level, I'd love to see it.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.