Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.

[popeye18]

Are there any scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution on any non religious wholly scientific grounds?

[luckyme]

from the OP -
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway im watching and i do see the usual dumbass religious Bs im used to seeing but they also provide GOOD points that ive never thought of before and i was shocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prodigy - be patient. He didn't say he's provided us with the GOOD points yet. Obviously the ones he raised in the OP do not even rise to being wrong.

luckyme

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I know theres not meant to be 1 but when we evolved from the apes and then evolved again killing the original 'evolvees' over and over again, (Ie we evolve into caveman then neanderthal so kill caveman.) why didnt we ever kill the original apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

apes? what type of apes? All modern primates are modern animals. We aren't descended from modern chimpanzees. Rather, chimpanzees and ourselves share a common ancestor. This is like using the existence of your sister to disprove that your grandfather was ever alive. Do creationists have any line they will not cross?

IMO, creationist "intellectuals" are like russian generals during world war one. They were unashamed to send men to the front line unarmed and untrained. Similarly, creationists have no shame in sending their followers around with bad info/arguements. I guess they are hoping that they never encounter any real resistance.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do the scientific world as a whole support macro evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. From Wikipedia: [ QUOTE ]
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[8].

[/ QUOTE ]

[tpir]

I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but man evolving from a rock is just ridiculous

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that all those scientists out there that claimed we evolved from rocks are wrong?!?! Good. Personally I think we evolved from lamps anyway. Especially those tall ones from Ikea because they are shaped more like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hair is like a lampshade, our feet are like a base, we all have electrical cords that supply our power....only a fool would think this was a coincidence.

[vhawk01]

The apes we evolved from are all dead, btw.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol creationists are stupid. Those are some of the worst arguments I've ever read.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have posted this before, but srsly, everyone should just read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol creationists are stupid. Those are some of the worst arguments I've ever read.

[/ QUOTE ]
They really are. Kind of life-tilts me a little that my family uses some of them, but whatever.

Speaking of life tilt, my evangelical friend who is trying to convert me sent me this book. We should do a SMP book club for this beauty. The "arguments" in it are so ridiculous that I don't understand how someone as smart as my friend falls for them. Critical thinking ftl [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Edit: the customer image for that book is from "Home Schooler." lol. o rly?

[hexag1]

once you accept microevolution, macroevolution follows without any added phenomena. nothing is missing. if you can see how some features of a population will change over time (longer legs, more fur, longer teeth etc..) then you can see that over vast periods of time (hundreds of millions of years) that macro evolution will occur.

FYI nobody is saying that live evolved from rocks. Life evolved from self-replicating organic macromomolecules. The self replicating macromolecules DNA and RNA are the basis of life today, and they are more sophisticated versions of the ones that arrived in the chemical/organic soup of the earths oceans 3.5 billion yrs ago. they came to be through random, naturally occurring chemical/energy cycles and required no design from an outside source.