Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

Deep in the mountainside near the Ariege river in France, ghostly images of long ago still dance across the rock walls of tunnels, overhangs, and vast caverns.

​

Explore this digital panorama, constructed from more than 100 individual photographs, and discover the images put there 13-14,000 years ago by the people now known as Magdalenian.

​

Look for bison, horses, ibex, and even a deer. Let your eyes and mind wander. Why were they put there? What did they represent? As close as we can get to the images themselves, the answers to these questions still disappear, like the light of our flashlights down dark tunnels, beckoning us to continue the exploration.

​

History & Culture

Hmmmmm. Older than 6,800 years, eh?What do it mean? What do it mean?If you want to discuss this, start a new thread. Maybe you could title it, "Nothing on or in this earth is greater than 6,800 years old." That could be fun!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The introduction from: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

​

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

​

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

​

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Many pages of details are available at this source. They show that, contrary to creationists' claims, macroevolution does occur.How do you deal with all of that evidence?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I don't doubt that you can find no evidence in those pages. From your past posts you are expert at ignoring evidence.And further, where do you dredge up "reproducible" as a necessary qualifier? It is never necessary to reproduce historical events, just to show that they occurred, which those pages do. (You don't really need to reproduce the Gettysburg address before you accept it, now do you?) The question we are discussing is whether macro-evolution occurred, not how. Stick to the subject.I have steered you to the evidence. Please address it in your next post. Pick one specific topic and we can start there. Trying to hand-wave it all away is a typical creationist tactic. Sorry, it doesn't work.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Try googling "transitional fossils hominid" for more results.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That "verifiable" evidence has been presented.Scientists and just plain folks from all around the world can see it.It is only folks who subscribe to a particular narrow religious belief who can't see it.Your name, ICANT, is apt. You are willfully dismissing any evidence that doesn't comport with your religious belief no matter what that evidence may be. And you don't have to study that evidence and see what it is, you just dismiss it out of hand.Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning," and you are making yourself the poster boy for that statement.(The history of the past few centuries has shown that belief vs. evidence is not the way to bet the rent money.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I haven't kept up with all the details since grad school, but it is several.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ICANT, this is a test.We have the following passages from:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87, Copyright 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

[V]ery complete fossil records should be smoothly connected geographically. Intermediates should be found close to their fossil ancestors.

​

The Equidae (i.e. horse) fossil record is very complete (though extremely complex) and makes very good geographical sense, without any large spatial jumps between intermediates. For instance, at least ten intermediate fossil horse genera span the past 58 million years. Each fossil genus spans approximately 5 million years, and each of these genera includes several intermediate paleospecies (usually 5 or 6 in each genus) that link the preceding and following fossil intermediates. They range from the earliest genus, Hyracotherium, which somewhat resembled a dog, through Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus, Dinohippus, Equus, to Modern Equus. Every single one of the fossil ancestors of the modern horse are found on the North American continent (MacFadden 1992, pp. 99, 156-162). For more detail about the known evolution of the Equidae, consult Kathleen Hunt's thorough FAQ on Horse Evolution.

We have here a very brief summary of 58 million years of horse evolution. More complete details can be found all over the interweb for those who care to look.Your test, and the test for the co-religionists you represent, is to explain this evidence in some other way than it is explained by the theory of evolution. Your grade depends on the completeness of your answer, the degree to which your answer explains the data, and the internal consistency of the various points you make.In order to falsify this evidence for macro-evolution you will need to do more than just say, "Where you there?" You will need to do more than just say, "Is it reproducible?" You will need to do more than hand-wave it all away with some pseudo-clever creationist quip.The degree to which you can do this determines your grade on this test.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Fail.EPIC FAIL!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Just a slight hint:Mouse is not a technical scientific term. You can't use it to make the argument you are making in the above post.Really!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From Wiki: The chimpanzee-human last common ancestor (CHLCA, CLCA, or C/H LCA) is the last individual, an african ape, that both humans and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor.The CHLCA is generally used as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human genetic studies where chimpanzees are used as outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) determination because the two species of chimpanzee, the Bonobos and the Chimp, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens. So? (There are a lot more fossils out there than you might think.) False again. The evidence (and it is a lot more than just a few fragmentary skulls) forms a cohesive picture of the past. If this was a court, you could call it circumstantial evidence, which is a lot more reliable that eyewitness testimony.You have just closed your mind to any and all evidence that doesn't support your particular religious beliefs. But that won't make the evidence go away, sorry.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Wrong! Absolutely wrong!"Mouse" and "mice" are generic terms, not scientific ones.In a scientific argument they mean nothing!I've told you this before, but you seem to be totally unwilling to listen to anything which, for religious reasons, you might disagree with.If that's the case you have absolutely no business discussing science, or presenting opinions dealing with science. You are simply not qualified.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I have advised him twice that generic terms like "mouse" are useless in scientific classification, and mean nothing in the current debate.My posts have been ignored. As usual.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

OK, if changes at the species level are "still mice" then what do you make of the six figures in the upper left half of the figure below? They are a similar level of change to the "mice" you are so fond of. Do you agree that they are all the same? Here is a better view of one of the early specimens: So what do you think? Are they all still mice?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Here is a very small sampling: There are a lot of postcranial remains out there, and I can post more if you seriously want to see them. Please stick to the topic.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.