Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously.
You do talk funny. Welcome to EvC.
What I need is an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful.
I'd like to hear that too. I don't think you will get the answer you seem to want from the people here who study and understand evolutionary biology.
You've given some examples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after. I already know that microevolution has many uses.
Too bad, because that's what we have. We have microevolution that goes on for thousands of years, and for hundreds of thousands of years and for millions of years, and for hundreds of millions of years and for more than 3 billion years and every living organism on this planet is the product of all that microevolution. Some people organize our understanding of this process of microevolution into semi-discreet chunks and they use species to represent the boundaries of the chunks.
Those of us who are fascinated by the study of life don't care whether you approve of our jargon. It works fine when we want to communicate with each other and if we don't quite understand we ask for clarification.
We review and criticize and discuss each other's work because we want the best understanding of how life works and how evolution works as possible. And we publish our discoveries so that our group knowledge will grow. We do this because humans have brains that quest for knowledge and we strive to acquire that knowledge ourselves.
If you don't care or want to know what we are discovering, too bad, but we will continue none the less.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
quote:The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile. A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back. An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously. What I need is an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful. You've given some examples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after. I already know that microevolution has many uses.
Say you had two types of walking, microwalking and macrowalking. Microwalking is about minor changes in position, say walking from the front door to the end of the driveway, while macrowalking is about major changes in position, say walking from the front door into town. But microwalking and macrowalking are just different amounts of the same thing: walking.
This is analogous to microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is about a few mutations and allele mixings after a single generation or perhaps a few generations. Macroevolution is about many mutations and allele mixings after many generations. They're just different amounts of the same thing: evolution.
Evolution is descent with modification followed by natural selection. A single generation of descent with modification followed by natural selection can be considered microevolution. Many generations of descent with modification followed by natural selection can be considered macroevolution. The minute changes of microevolution gradually accumulate into significant changes, such as significant structural change.
The fossil record is evidence of oftentimes significant structural change over time. The fossils we find in successive geologic layers show small doglike creatures become gradually larger over time to become horses. They record small rodent like creatures becoming mammals. And they record a small weasel-like creature evolving into whales.
A theist does not need to belong to an organised religion to be a theist. It is true that ToE contradicts the Bible, so a Christian theist cannot believe in both the Bible and evolution. However, ToE doesn't prevent some kind of non-Christian theist from believing in a supernatural Creator God - such a theist can believe that a Creator God created the first simple life-form and then from there developed more complex forms of life through a process of evolution.
Come to think of it, Freemasonry is one organised religion that I'm pretty sure allows a theist to believe both in a Creator God and evolution.
In other words, if you think ToE is going to kill off belief in a Creator God, you are wrong.
As I mentioned, a Christian cannot rightfully believe in both the Bible and evolution. However, there are many so-called Christians who do believe in evolution, but they are either ignorant of the fact that evolution is not compatible with the Bible, or they have chosen to believe that evolution is true and that parts of the Bible are false, in which case, they are not real Christians, but fake Christians who have placed compromise above the truth.
Merely observing the rings of Saturn or that daffodils have yellow flowers or that giraffes have long necks is not science, as they are merely observations. Science involves more than just making observations.
Re: Yet the fact remains that Christians oppose Creationism
Having lost your initial argument, you've now moved the goal posts from what the Catholic Church officially teaches to what you think is taught in "science education". Considering your evident ignorance of Catholicism, why would I think you know any more about Catholic education? But having said that, I dread to think what is taught in mainstream "Catholic" education; it is notoriously corrupt and dominated by neo-Marxists.
Regardless, the fact remains that the Catholic Church allows the faithful to completley reject ToE and believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1.
I asked you for an example of how the belief (or the theory or the fact) that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has "enormous scientific value" and you can't give me even one! I called your bluff and all you can do in response is repeat your mantra. As I suspected ... all talk and no action.
Re: Yet the fact remains that Christians oppose Creationism
Having lost your initial argument, you've now moved the goal posts from what the Catholic Church officially teaches to what you think is taught in "science education".
Sorry but I lost no such argument. Yes, Roman Catholicism allows people to continue holding absurd positions like Creationism but it still is among the denominations where representatives have publicly opposed teaching Creation Science in public schools.
Yes, you are way off topic. However the important information is that evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for what is seen in reality, that whale evolution is a great example and the literal account found in Genesis 1 has been refuted by reality and is also contradicted by the other account found in Genesis 2.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that ToE contradicts the Bible. A true Christian cannot believe in both. My point is, ToE doesn't prevent some sort of non-Christian theist from believing that a Creator God created the first life form from which all other life forms evolved.
Dr. Adequate: "You are really going to maintain that these facts are not true science?"
If, as you claim, observing that daffodils have yellow flowers, for example, is true science, then going to the seaside and observing young women wearing teeny weeny polka dot bikinis is also true science.