Can I disprove Macro-Evolution

So in other words, you won't believe it unless there's evidence of every single step of the way, until each and every question has been answered.Of course, that's not science. That's irrationality.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Yea our pitcure is not perfect but that does not mean you cant see the full picture if a few jigsaw pieces are missing.How many pieces are to the god jigsaw how many do you have in place?Oh and how much change must one species undergo for you to call it a nother species? If the line is not the possebility of sexual reproduction then what would you call the line.

And yet he belives in a god whit no other proof then the bible a book written by sheppardsgo figure

You seem to be avoiding this question from Frako.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That's macroevolution - over time, our classifications describe a greater variety of organisms. You watched your "piney-woods rooters" go from describing one species of swine to two.That's macroevolution. One kind of pig becomes several. "Canine" comes to describe an abundance of wolves and domesticated dogs. "Mammal" no longer refers to one kind of furry rodent (as it did in the time of dinosaurs), it refers to thousands of different types of organisms.We classify living organisms in a hierarchal fashion. As species evolve and change over time, as new species arise, these levels of classification expand. That's macroevolution, and now you've admitted that you've seen an example of it first-hand, which is what you asked for. If they're both horses, why are they so different? If they're so different, how do you know they're both horses?Be specific.

I don't understand what you mean by "circumstantial evidence." That's a term of law, not way of describing scientific evidence (since all scientific evidence requires inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.)But this would seem to indicate your admission that evidence for macroevolution has been presented; you just don't like it, for some reason. Can you elaborate?

Good Grief! No wonder nobody seems to be able to get through to you. No one is saying that the man making the journey is evolving. It is an analogy: each individual step in his journey is like each individual step in Micro-evolution. When he reaches his destination, all those small steps add up to his entire journey. just like all those small steps of Micro-evolution add up to become Macro-evolution.I CAN'T believe you missed the whole point, after more than 3800 posts and 3.5 years here.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Not quite. Macroevolution is the process that is observed as the origin of new species. The theory of evolution is the proposal for how all extant life forms did arise, and its a scientific conclusion from the evidence (as well as the logical conclusion of parsimony) that all organisms share common descent from a single organism.The theory of evolution, in other words, explains the history of macroevolution. Correct. You can view that history, as best we understand it, at Tree of Life Web ProjectTrue, but the proper response to this is not to abandon all progress simply because there's progress yet to make. We don't know everything about medicine, for instance. The appropriate response is not to tear down hospitals, it's to build more schools. If there wasn't more to do, what would be the point of teaching people biology? Yes, I admit - we don't have infinite knowledge about the past. Yeah, you really got me there. Ok. You asked for evidence of macroevolution. I argue that 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descentpresents 29+ evidences for macroevolution, to which you have not yet replied or even read. Because you asked for it. You asked for evidence; it was provided. Why would you not even look at something you specifically asked for?

ICANT -Is this an image of a man in motion, or a man who is motionless?If you think this man is in motion, could you explain how you know that, since the picture is not moving in any way? Be specific.

Hi fraco, Well this creationist believes that your mice that can not breed with other mice is still mice.When they cease to be mice then 'Macro-Evolution' will have taken place. If that is true could you tell me where I could pick up a cross between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua? You can call it anything you want to call it. But if you start with two mice and a billion years later you got trillions of mice and billions of them can not breed with each other because of changes or habits you still got trillions of mice, whether they can breed with each other or not.So call it what you will it is not 'Macro-Evolution'.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi jar, I am still waiting for anyone to present a verifiable instance of
'Macro-Evolution'. That is enough of those little micro-evolution events over time to transform one creature into a totaly different creature.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Dr, I don't see how the big stallion and the little mare in my avatar can breed and produce an offspring.They are both classified as horses.So where is the difference other than size?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi fraco, I buy that statement.It is possible for a stallion and a Heffer to mate. But it is impossible for them to produce offspring.Now if they could produce offspring that could in return produce offspring I would call that 'Macro-Evolution'.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You can wait till hell freezes over for all anyone cares. What you believe is of course totally irrelevant to either the topic or reality.The topic is "Can I disprove Macro-evolution", not can I doubt if it happened or question if it happened; it is can it be shown that Macro Evolution is impossible.As you have admitted, there is evidence that the critters existed.As you admitted, there is ample evidence that the Theory of Evolution is sufficient to explain how critters evolve.The model, the Theory of Evolution, explains that small changes happen over time.It explains why we are all really just one thing we are all living critters.The divisions of critters into the various categories is simply a human construct we created to put labels on things. The difference between humans and the rest of the great apes exists only in the minds of man, that we, man, decided to extend the labeling system to that level.Now you may not believe any of this, and that is fine. You are free to believe anything you want.BUT, there is evidence to support the conventional model, and no evidence to support any alternative.In addition, neither you or anyone else has presented any reason to even consider that macro-evolution is not simply the sum of micro-evolution over time, much less any evidence that would disprove Macro-evolution.Honestly, your contributions to this thread have been about as worthless as the god you try to market.When you have a product, something of worth or at least interest, maybe you can try again.But remember, your disbelief is irrelevant. Your doubts are irrelevant.Until you can return with a model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model you have nothing to offer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So when would they cese to be mice, when would you stop cayyling them mice il find a simmilar example when you tell me what your definition of what makes seperate species is. Well if you want it unatural then insaminate a grate dane bitch whit chiuahua sperm, the way nature would do it though is mix a few together, a grate dane would f%&/ a smaller dog and a Chiuhaua a slightly bigger dog and the ofspring of those 2 dogs could mate retaining parts of the chiuaua and the grate dane. So when do you stop calling them House mice, the second they go out the door well no cause they are still the same. Wehen they adapt to their new enviorment growing some parts larger some smaller, when.On a nother note if those mice are mice then why is the buffalo a buffalo and not a cow they look the same they should be called cows so what they have a bit of fur and different horns everything else is roughly the same why are they buffalo and not cows what destiguishes a species in your eyes if not the fact of sucsesfull reproduction. Does every diferent species need a new organ well shit happens all mamals are the same species then.What is the mechanism that you use to define 2 diferent species, what would the minimal changes haveto be in a house mouse to be called something different to be a different species.