Evolution and Religion

[Anonymouse]

I don't need to explain it, your desperate defense of fetishizing evolution has constantly affirmed it.

[loseyourname]

You haven't explained how evolution is unfalsifiable. If you believed that to be the case, why would you be posting all this evidence that you think falsifies it?

[Anonymouse]

Evolution is unfalsifiable and I've explained this a thousand times. Creationism is unfalsifiable as well. Any theory that answers everything and anything, also answers nothing. Stop being obtuse.

[loseyourname]

Funny how it's only the non-scientists that complain about evolution not being scientific. Yet they say nothing about quantum theory or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

[Anonymouse]

[QUOTE=loseyourname] Microevolution adds up to macroevolution. QUOTE]

That is what I have said all along you goof, but I have said that evolutionists believe that the changes on a micro level lead to changes on a macro level. Eventually it is believed to be an amalgamation. Either way, it is a belief, quite simply put, and a very powerful might I add. Now I don't want to again go into why this theory is not scientific since it cannot be tested or repeated.

[loseyourname]

Microevolution doesn't cause macroevolution. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Microevolution adds up to macroevolution. Think of it this way. You have a rock and you add a little sand to it, making it a 0.001% larger rock. That is a very microscopic change. But if you keep doing that, say, once a generation for 10,000 years, you'll end up with a rock that is several times the size of the original. Evolution works in a similar way. Small changes accumulate. The change from generation to generation is virtually unnoticeable without a detailed knowledge of zoology. But if you compare one generation to a generation that existed 50 million years ago, they'll look about as similar as Archaeopteryx and a sparrow.

[Anonymouse]

Microevolution is the formation of subspecies. Saying speciation is microevolution does not make sense.

It is change on a micro level, not a macro.

[dusken]

Microevolution is the formation of subspecies. Saying speciation is microevolution does not make sense.

[Anonymouse]

Speciation events are nothing new. I already stated this but you didn't pay attention. These are micro changes. It is believed that through time these all would cause macro changes. That doesn't mean they do, and it means it's an assumption. So far as we know, these changes go back and forth, such as the moths for example. It goes both ways, it is adaptation, the same with the finches. These would be "microevolution" and this is nothing in denial, even creationists admit this. What's your point?

[loseyourname]

I don't understand this. Are you now conceding that speciation events have occured? The fact that more drastic changes from one genus to two have not been observed is evidence for the currently accepted theory of evolution as an accumulation of small changes. If a genus change occured in a single generation, that would be a macromutation, and would constitute evidence for saltationism.

I ask again: If you have variation within a species, and changes from one species to two, what more do you honestly expect to see? This is exactly what the theory predicts. Everything that is observed, in the lab, in nature, and in the fossil record, is in perfect accord with what is predicted. It is in utter discord with the predictions of all other proposed hypotheses.