No Witnesses

If macro-evolution went on trial who would the witnesses be that it indeed does happen? If it's really happening as to how the ToE says it does then this shouldn't be so hard. That the evolutionists can't even agree on this says something.Evolution within species particularly land mammals like dog, fox, cat, horse ect depending on the real seperation of the species/kinds does happen. To what extent I don't think is known exactly but the land to water, water to land mammal transition I believe is all speculation including a common ancestor for chimp and man. The cat to fox for example you still see similar traits that show evolution could have occurred. Chimp and man there is to much seperation and it doesn't fit with the other groupings as neatly as the canine or feline classification. It's the odd ball out IMO as well as land to water and water to land mammals.

Yeah, I get that. And some interpret a common ancestor. We Creationists interpret a common designer. Not a random process that is non-intelligently non-directed. Ok. So then macro-evolution cannot be witnessed the way the ToE describes then? Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated? Modulous, just go find a chimp that can write a book, fly to the moon, etc etc etc...You think us and the chimps (other than genetics created by a common designer) are similiar in what way that you think we should be classified together? Not really. I can witness how chimps act and how humans act. It's not a "gut instinct". It's reality. My conclusion is that chimps/apes should be classified seperatly than humans.Other than the genetics why do you think chimps/apes and humans should be classified together?

Can you give an example of macro-evolution being witnessed today as happening like the ToE says it does? Don't say the moths either, or even a poodle from a wolf, that's just variation within a kind.Macro-evolution is a cow, slowly over long periods of time, becoming a whale.Have you ever witnessed anything like that happening?

Yes, I know that, but Rrhain says it's been witnessed. I'm just wondering what it is he means.

Well, how about any land mammal to sea mammal?

Because I still don't know what it is, that's why. I've asked, i've made statements, yet no one explains it. This thread here isn't helping either.Are you saying land mammal to water mammal and vice versa didn't or doesn't happen?Are you saying all species evolve within their own species and they/we all evoloved from common ancestors and they/we all split off into different directions yet evolved within our own species? That each species has their own common ancestor?

Tangle, this was a message to me from Panda when I questioned land to water and water to land mammals. These pictures was his answer to if this happens.I don't know what it means. It's just three pictures. Can you explain it to me?

I am, yes. Fine. I'm just asking if it happens, and if it does, how is it determined, and why the ToE predicts it. Why does it have to predict such a thing?Is it necessary that land to water or water to land mammmals be predicted to make that transition? Why are they combined(water and land)?Is this a prediction or does evidence suggest it happened or happens?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Ok, thanks PaulK. So Scientists are using pictures to determine that they evolved from land dwelling creatures to become sea dwelling creatures? I thought there was more to it. So the fossils come with name tags? Well, I have a completley different argument now. Mainly using pictures as evidence, and unlabled fossils.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Can you break those articles down for me in your own words? There so long and a little hard to understand. I'd rather not just exchange articles. I can get some to for my position. Isn't that adaptaion? Or we would say variation within a kind. Yeah. Huh? I don't doubt speciation happens.Can you explain "ring Species" to me? Tell me why you are using it in your argument. What does ring species have to do with anything? Is ring species an example of macro-evolution? Do you have an example you could show me? Ok. I don't want to debate the definition of words or what they mean. I don't have a problem with speciation. I don't even know if the term macro-evolution needs to be used. I'm interested in change. What is changing? I don't care what it's called. What animals change into what animals and how far outside of the species boundry can they go for speciation to occur?Do you know how far the boundries for speciation to occur in animals is? Moving the goalposts? I don't know where the goal posts are. If you want to discuss what words mean what I think that's for another thread. If you want to call speciation macro-evolution fine. I agree with speciation. I don't need to use the term "macro-evolution". Maybe it is causing some confusion here. No, i'm not. I'm not in a position to say anything. I'd like discuss how far speciation can occur in species and what the limits are when it comes to speciation.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.