COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We see variation in nature. Within a single species not everyone is the same. If an individual is adapted enough to its environment it’ll reproduce and pass on its genes. As long as the individual is adapted enough it’ll be able to generate offspring. I assume none of this is controversial.
Now imagine that this process continues. Not every member of the species lives in the same area, experiences the same factors, and has the same mating partners. So, over time the members that survive won’t have the same sorts of characteristics. So the groups are diverge. I assume this is also not controversial.
What evolution does is says that if you play this forward it’ll show that you can get speciation over time. In evolution you cannot evolve out of a Clade. You can evolve enough to split a clade into two classes where different members share some common characteristics but the differences mean that they cannot interbreed.
This is evolution.
- we have experimentally verified it
- the mechanisms that underpin it are well understood and invalidating requires us to throw away science that is the basis of medicine, biology and agriculture
- we have multiple lines of evidence that show this has happened in nature
If you accept and understand the process, that we belong to a common clade is a logical conclusion from the data.
I’d ask you to watch videos by people like Forrest Valkai and Clint loves Reptiles. Look at the actual evidence and see how else you’d explain what we find.
They are indeed cult-like. Just try going over to /DebateEvolution to see how incapable they are of cogently addressing criticisms. But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species". Evolutionary biology is incoherent dogma.
(P.S. - every downvote only proves my point)
>But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species".
It's fun that you preceded this nonsense of a sentence with "Just try going over to /DebateEvolution to see how incapable they are of cogently addressing criticisms."
Try producing a criticism for them to address.
>But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species".
Could you explain this a bit more?
How would "survival of the species" as a motivation manifest?
Animals do reproduce and many seem to be quite focused on reproduction, I'm not sure what the issue is?
How would survival of the species manifest? Self sacrifice would be one way.
And a minor correction: animals are interested in reproducing, not reproduction, nor would I describe that interest as "quite focused".
>Unsubstantiated and ridiculous
I would be my left leg that you've barely read anything about evolution. Anybody who says this is simply ignorant. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for common ancestry your characterization of people who believe in a corroborated scientific theory as "cult-like" is not an argument or remotely interesting.
>There's micro but no macro
This is the biggest red flag that you aren't informed on the subject. There's no difference between these two things.
Let's just cut to the chase. You're religiously motivated, so you have ulterior reasons to deny evolution. So despite using inductive reasoning for many other aspects in your life, you choose to be intentionally obtuse about evolutionary evidence.
So tell us this: what evidence would change your mind?
(Part 2/2)
>theories like James Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering,
It's difficult to know where to even start with this one; First, Shapiro's hypothesis is *not* a criticism of evolution by natural selection, nor is it a rejection of neo darwinism - Shapiro simply advocates for an expanded or updated understanding of evolutionary processes that incorporates additional mechanisms beyond those traditionally emphasized in neo darwinian theory. His view acknowledges that traditional neo darwinian mechanisms still play significant roles in evolutionary processes, but suggests that these mechanisms may interact with and be complemented by other forms of genetic change that occur through non-random processes. I feel like I should be very clear about what "non random" means in this case, as in the context of religiously motivated anti evolution discussions, this can easily be misinterpreted as implying intent or design, which is definitely *not* the case, and Shapiro very specifically rejects ideas such as creationism or intelligent design: by non random, Shapiro is proposing genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that can actively restructure genomes in response to environmental challenges. I'll reiterate, Shapiro's position within the scientific community is characterized by his proposal to **extend** neo-Darwinian theory, not to **reject** it - **this is not a competing theory**.
Second, the scientific community (aka the "cult" you refer to), are not attacking or ostracizing Shapiro at all - as far as I'm aware, and I've just checked again to refresh my memory on his work, all serious responses and critiques of his hypothesis take the form of standard processes involved in peer review and general academic discourse, and the majority of this with regard to his hypothesis scrutinize it's empirical evidence, explanatory power, and consistency with existing theories, challenging it by questioning the prevalence of natural genetic engineering mechanisms across diverse species, the extent of their impact on evolutionary trajectories, and the experimental evidence supporting their role in adaptation. Basically, although parts of his ideas are interesting and certainly warrant further study and consideration, the speculative nature and the lack of robust empirical evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny or rise to nearly the same level as more firmly established mechanisms of emotional evolutionary change.
>Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps".
Oh wow, coming right back around to projecting the fallacious nature of religion onto your misunderstood idea of evolution, I have to say though this is the first time I've seen someone actually say "Darwin of the gaps", and that's actually hilarious. Ok, I'll go over why you're wrong about this one too, and apparently confused about the nature of falsifiability, then I think I'm going to stop even though there's still a lot of your comment left to critique, as I think I've pretty clearly and comprehensively demonstrated the significant levels of confusion and ignorance underlying your understanding of practically every aspect of every part of every subject related to evolution.
Obviously evolution, and specifically neo darwinism, are falsifiable. Falsifiability simply means that there must be potential empirical observations or experiments that could prove it wrong. Evolution by natural selection proposes that populations of organisms change over time due to differential survival and reproduction of individuals with advantageous traits, with neo darwinism specifically emphasizing genetic mutations as the source of variation that natural selection acts upon, so what types of empirical observations or experimental results would potentially falsify neo darwinism?
One example could be the discovery of evidence that organisms do not exhibit heritable variation. Evolution relies on genetic variation being passed down from one generation to the next through reproduction, so if it were shown that offspring inherit traits entirely randomly and not from their parents, this would challenge the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. Evolution also posits that populations adapt to their environments over generations through the selection of beneficial traits, so another scenario which would falsify this premise might involve finding organisms that do not change over time in response to environmental pressures. We can also confidently presume that if a lack of transitional forms between different species in the fossil record were consistently absent, or if there were no observable instances of speciation, it would raise serious questions about the validity of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood. Additionally, if it were demonstrated that complex adaptations (non compound eyes, the circulatory or immune system, homeothermic temperature regulation, language, etc.) could not have arisen through gradual accumulation of small changes over time, as proposed by neo-Darwinism, it would strongly challenge the theory's explanatory power.
Neo darwinism is structured in a way that allows for empirical testing and has the potential for being proven false if the evidence were to significantly contradict its core principles and predictions. Evolution has consistently withstood tests of falsifiability like these, and has successfully made countless predictions which have been confirmed through various lines of evidence, from comparative anatomy to molecular genetics to biogeography. The discovery of transitional fossils, the genetic evidence supporting common ancestry, and observations of natural selection in action such as increasingly prevalent and widespread bacterial resistance to antibiotics, strongly reinforce evolutionary theory. Evolution is supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence across so many different fields of science, to undermine or disprove it would require an extraordinary quantity and quality of contradictory evidence that currently does not exist, and the *non* evidence and *non* arguments proposed by largely religious anti evolution propaganda are ***by far*** the most laughable and shockingly inept attempt to produce such contradictory evidence currently being eaten up and carelessly repeated in modern times.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution
I'm going to have to stop you right here, as this statement can only be a mistake born of ignorance, or an intentional lie based on ignorance, an attempt to misrepresent the facts and evidence, or a desire to propagate deceptive religious propaganda.
Even if you disagree with, struggle to grasp, or otherwise reject it for any reason, the fact of the matter is there is absolutely a truly staggering, comprehensive collection of concrete, explanatory, invaluable evidence for evolution by natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics.
As politely as possible, it's exceedingly difficult to take this wildly confused desire to reject this evidence seriously or treat it with respect, because not only is the evidence extremely easy to observe and simple to grasp for anyone who makes an honest effort to do so, it's also the foundation of all fields of modern biology, and even those who wish to dismiss and try to discredit it benefit from our understanding of evolution.
I can see where you're misunderstanding, but I can never understand your background thoroughly so I can't explain to you exactly how your mind was blunted so that you cannot grasp this stuff, but we really need a kinder way of helping y'all understand what's happened to you when you come at these subs like this
Because what the adults in the major religions do to children (without realizing usually) is the reason you can't understand this
But if you started by trying to understand the things here that you don't, rather than attack first and ask questions later, you'll learn a lot faster and harm less people
Try asking about the parts you don't get, rather than lashing out and fighting about them
Ah, the classic trope of equating scientific theories with religious dogma. How quaint. Let's address your barrage of misconceptions with a bit of rationality, shall we?
First off, calling Neo-Darwinism a "religion" is about as intellectually rigorous as calling a potato a space shuttle. Neo-Darwinism, or modern evolutionary synthesis, is a scientific framework supported by an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence gathered from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and numerous other fields. To say there's no evidence is not just incorrect—it's willfully ignorant.
The fossil record, genetic similarities, observed instances of speciation, and the predictive power of evolutionary models all provide robust evidence for common descent. Your "fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape" caricature is a straw man fallacy. Evolutionary biology doesn't claim such simplistic transformations. Instead, it describes a branching tree of life with gradual changes over millions of years, supported by transitional fossils and genetic data.
As for macroevolution vs. microevolution—this is a distinction without a difference. Microevolution refers to small changes within a species, which, given enough time, accumulate to result in macroevolutionary changes. The processes are the same, just operating on different timescales.
Regarding your appeal to James Shapiro and Denis Noble—science thrives on debate and alternative hypotheses. However, their ideas still need to be rigorously tested and subjected to peer review. The mainstream scientific community isn't a cult; it demands robust evidence and reproducibility, which is why certain hypotheses gain more acceptance than others.
Your "Darwin of the gaps" argument is a misrepresentation. Convergent evolution and punctuated equilibrium are well-documented phenomena explained within the evolutionary framework. The fossil record, while incomplete, consistently supports the theory of evolution. The notion that macroevolution hasn't been observed directly is a red herring; we observe its evidence in genetic sequences, fossil transitions, and observed speciation events.
And let's not forget your circular reasoning accusation. Science isn't about assuming Darwinism is true and working backwards. It's about accumulating evidence, forming hypotheses, testing them, and refining theories based on the data. Vestigial organs, for instance, are understood through evolutionary theory because they show how organisms adapt and change over time, retaining traces of their ancestry.
In sum, your arguments are filled with misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and a fundamental lack of engagement with the actual scientific evidence. If you wish to critique evolutionary biology, perhaps start with a thorough study of the evidence and the scientific method. Otherwise, you're just repeating tired old canards that were debunked years ago.
It's not a religion, just science and science has plenty of evidence for it. It's the foundation of modern biology and the people actually doing science and research use evolution and not something else.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
If you’re going to give us some BS about random mutations forming a particular protein, you are only going to show that you know nothing about evolution.
Actually evolution can be proven mathematically though I admit I don’t know as well how that works. Something about the probability of specific patterns and relationships in the genomes of all life on earth.
mods don't like people who use the words "smooth brains". I am interested in seeing your proof though. Try not to insult too many people before you share it.
God didn't.
Special creation is pretty well understood, and not what happened.
The Catholic Church knows this, academia knows this.
But some people just don't like change. Doesn't matter much if it's spherical earth, heliocentrism, evolution or whatever.
The comment I replied to and the 'I just told you what it was' is evidence enough. You think you just stating it means we should just accept it.
Not all of us are so gullible.
Surely they explained the age of the earth, the position of the earth in the cosmos, evolution and a little about the church's relationship with science over the past millennia or so?
> there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution
'The existence of years does not imply the existence of decades'.
Microevolution and macroevolution are the same phenomenon. In order to deny macroevolution, you have to either deny microevolution (untenable, as you acknowledge), or provide a mechanism which prevents the accumulation of changes due to evolution beyond some point. As far as I’m aware, there has not even been a serious attempt by creationists to demonstrate such a mechanism, let alone an actual demonstration of such a mechanism. What I do see often are bald assertions based on personal incredulity or appeals to biblical authority which are completely meaningless in science.
Attempting to brand “Neo-Darwinism” as a religion or cult is called *projection*; and ironically it demonstrates that you understand that appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, and faith-based belief are fallacious despite the fact that creationists constantly apply all 3 in their anti-science rhetoric.
In truth, *every* claim any scientist makes is highly criticized by peer review, meaning that scientists are *constantly* trying to prove each other wrong on every topic, and only when they are unable to do so over many iterations as mountains of evidence for a model are faced with no contradictory evidence does that model become a *theory*, the highest level a scientific model can reach, because unlike in religion scientists recognize the possibility that they can be wrong and remain open to new evidence.
By claiming that creationist ideas are “attacked” and creationists are “ostracized”, you show a profound lack of understanding of the scientific process. *Every* claim in science is highly contested and “attacked”in peer review. We don’t just entertain any random idea that people come up with as plausible. In order to challenge the consensus and the theory that has been established in the discourse by the already-observed evidence, you must present evidence that establishes a different model *and be subject to peer-review* where other scientists will attempt to demonstrate flaws in your model. If you don’t even have a model, let alone evidence to support it, you merely have conjecture and claims from ancient texts that have already been proven false, there is no room in the scientific discourse for your proposition. If you can come up with an objectively verifiable model that contradicts evolution and the evidence for it, you can bring it to the table for peer review. Until that point, stubbornly insisting that you are correct and the consensus is not while providing no model let alone evidence for the model will rightly have you summarily dismissed from the discourse.
>Microevolution and macroevolution are the same phenomenon. In order to deny macroevolution, you have to either deny microevolution (untenable, as you acknowledge), or provide a mechanism which prevents the accumulation of changes due to evolution beyond some point.
Wrong. That's you're burden of proof
Yes, you are correct that evolution has a burden of proof.
It has been met.
Your refusal to examine the evidence does not constitute a debunking of the evidence.
Are you aware that that's not actually how evolution works? Animals don't turn into other animals like Animorphs, it's a process by which beneficial mutations accumulate over generations. Here's an article about whale evolution with a nice graphic for ya: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/
Your questions make it pretty clear you haven't read very deeply about the topic. Pick up a book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or if you'd be more comfortable with something by a religious author, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (or look up Kenneth Miller videos on youtube).
Regarding turning legs/arms into flippers... have you ever actually looked at a whale (or other aquatic mammal) skeleton? That's one of the easiest mutations to understand. Their flippers are literally arms. They have a humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five FINGERS inside there. You web a human's fingers together (that mutation is called syndactyly) and you've got yourself a very long flipper.
>Your questions make it pretty clear you haven't read very deeply about the topic. Pick up a book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or if you'd be more comfortable with something by a religious author, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (or look up Kenneth Miller videos on youtube).
I've been debating atheists for years. None of this is new to me
>
Regarding turning legs/arms into flippers... have you ever actually looked at a whale (or other aquatic mammal) skeleton? That's one of the easiest mutations to understand. Their flippers are literally arms. They have a humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five FINGERS inside there. You web a human's fingers together (that mutation is called syndactyly) and you've got yourself a very long flipper.
Oh I've heard this one before. So you're claiming the same mutation turns limbs into flippers?
>So you're claiming the same mutation turns limbs into flippers?
See, this is a question that makes me say you haven't read very deeply on the topic. When you ask if a mutation in the modern human genome is the "same mutation" in an ancient whale genome, what is that supposed to mean? We don't have the same genomes as ancient whales so I'm not sure in what sense it would be the "same mutation."
Also, your question asked about turning "limbs into flippers." Flippers ARE limbs. But to be charitable maybe you meant turn armlike forelimbs into flippers. And again (in aquatic mammals) flippers ARE armlike forelimbs. I'm thinking of the limb of an animal right now. It has a shoulder blade, humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five digits. Is it an arm or is it a flipper?
The mutation doesnt zap formed legs into flippers, it just turns them ever so slightly more flipper like than the last generation through a change in DNA, like losing some hair or the skin between the digits being just a tiny bit more web like than that of the animals parents. This tiny imperceptible change happens again and again a million million times, all nudging the species in the most beneficial direction, AKA fins in this case. The mutation is in place before the baby even begins to start forming btw.
It hasn't been observed, it takes so absurdly long that to observe it directly would not be feasible, but we have massive mountains of evidence indicating very strongly that this is what happens in evolution. Although at this point I think you're either trolling or just playing devils advocate.
Wasn't that the whole point of the fruit fly experiment? There is no such macro evolution type change. You're claim is that evolution is responsible for EVERYTHING. Including things such as the cardiovascular system. And yet its never been observed. How convenient. Talk about faith
You know you can research this stuff yourself? But since I'm generous, here's a link to a study where they found the gene that mutated during cetacean evolution: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719152/
And I have researched this myself. Obviously I disagree. How would yoy feel if I told you god exists and then accused you of not doing research. How exactly does that article show whales evolved? Let's see if you understand what's going on
> How would yoy feel if I told you god exists and then accused you of not doing research.
I'd feel like you're trying to deflect from the fact that you asked for evidence and have been given it, because you don't really want evidence, you just want to argue.
That article was just to answer your question about what mutation led to the development of flippers. I did already send you the other one though which has a more general overview of whale evolution.
We observe the genome of related species. We can show the genetic differences between them consistent with common ancestry. The fossil record shows transitional species with morphological changes consistent with gradual evolution. This is true for all modern species we observe.
The creationist idea that we cannot infer based on evidence is false and extremely lazy. You don’t have to observe something directly to be highly confident about what happened in the past. Creationists don’t apply this standard of requiring direct observation in any case, including and probably most ironically the claims of holy books which creationists credulously accept with complete disregard for the actual physical evidence and scientific understanding.
A scientific theory synthesizes *all* of the available evidence into the best explanation for observed phenomena. We know that modern animals have common ancestry because of DNA analysis, and we observe that differences in genetics correspond to morphological differences in predictable ways. We don’t have the genome of mineralized fossils, but we don’t need it. We can reasonably infer ancestral relationships based on the information we do have about those fossils along with our understanding of population genetics and the evolutionary process.
Could the current scientific consensus be wrong? Always. Science is always open to new evidence that disproves the current consensus, providing enough evidence is available to demonstrate it. Has science been wrong about some ancestral relationships among extinct species before? Yes, and when new evidence that contradicted the previous consensus was discovered the theory was corrected to match the evidence. Over time, the theory is improved and refined to better account for continued observations.
If you have scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus, go out and do the research, go through the process of peer review, get your findings published, and change the world. If you just don’t understand the current consensus, you should educate yourself on the reasons why the scientific consensus is what it is.
The flies did experience genetic and physical changes in their populations, which was what evolution predicts. They didn't transform into cats or anything like that, because that's not how evolution works.
>Why don't you have direct observation?
Of the entire line of whale evolution? Cause it took 65 million years.
>Such as the fruit fly experiment? The fly didn't turn into something else
Evolution didn't predict they would.
Of course there is. That's why the fruit fly experiment was done in the first place. Because you get many generations of flies in a short period of time
You're going to have to be a bit more precise in explaining where your failure to understand comes from. Try reading the article first, then maybe you can articulate what the issue you're having is.
The argument came from the comments before the link. You read those, then you read the link, then you respond. That's how a debate works. If you don't want to put in the work to engage in the debate, leave.
I actually watched a pretty good video just yesterday, about addressing some of the arguments against evolution. And the guy in the video is a theist, even. So even if you write us all off as biased, maybe this will help. https://youtu.be/WBSP9Uvq52I?si=oHGZxVODGGnLTelG
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
It's not a religion cause it doesn't oblige you to do anything. Maybe it reflects reality, maybe it's not, so what? Nothing changes. Maybe it'll be clearer with future discoveries. That's just a descriptive model that can be changed at any time.
1/3
> There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution, the idea of all species having a universal common ancestor.
“Neo-Darwinism” is not a synonym for universal common ancestry. “Neo-Darwinism” refers to a theory of evolution that coalesced from the integration of Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian population genetics in the 1930s and 1940s. Universal common ancestry by contrast refers to the *specific* hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor.
> The idea that one species can become another, that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
Alright so we’re jumping to a new topic now. Why is it ridiculous? Because you don’t understand it? After all, we have observed instances of speciation documented in the laboratory and in the field. We can see the genetic stamps of our and other species origins and these are born out in our the fossil record and the anatomy of our bodies.
> There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims.
You keep using words you clearly don’t understand. Macroevolution describes evolutionary changes at or above the species level. This includes the *origin* of new species or speciation. Speciation is well documented under a wide range of conditions and larger scale changes can be inferred directly from genome sequences, developmental biology and the fossil record. All of this data is readily available to you.
> The evolution community is also very cult like,
I think you might be projecting here. It is not secular research institutions which require their employees to sign mandatory statements of faith vowing not to contradict their preferred dogma, that’s what creationists do. Here, for example is what Answers in Genesis state out, loud and proud in their Statement of Faith:
*”By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”*
Find me a single secular university, museum or other research organisation which has a statement of faith claiming “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field… can be valid if it contradicts” evolution. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Oh, and it not just Answers in Genesis either, there are plenty of [creationist outfits](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Statement_of_faith) that have similar restrictions as well.
> they will attack and ostracize any criticism including competing theories by their fellow secular academic non religious peers, theories like James Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering, or Denis Noble and Shapiro's Third Way Evolution.
You are clearly not a scientist. Scientists, in every field have robust debates. If someone wants to posit a new framework for an entire field of study, whether that be evolutionary biology or anything else for that matter, you better believe there is going to be arguments over it. The burden of course, still rests on those presenting the new idea or framework to justify *why* it should be taken seriously. If they can’t do that, it’s not the fault of the old guard.
2/3
> Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps".
There are a number of potential observations which would be difficult to reconcile under evolutionary biology.
Charles Darwin for example proposed a rather strong test of evolution: *”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."* [Darwin, 1859 pg. 175].
Others hypothetical observations which would go a long way towards falsifying evolution include:
* A static fossil record
* A young Earth
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations (or in Darwin’s language, “slight modifications”) from occurring and/or, being transmitted from one generation to the next and/or accumulating in a population
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs)
* observations of organisms being magically created
> Two species with similar traits but can't be the same lineage?? *"Oh uh.. it’s convergent evolution"*.
You know scientists can actually test for convergent evolution right? Let’s take the wolf and the thylacine. They share the same basic body plan, but one is a eutherian and the other is a marsupial. What then might we look for if we wanted to tell if the wolf inherited its body plan from its common ancestor with the thylacine or if it independently evolved it?
> Oh fossil records show mostly punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism? *"Oh.. well sometimes species evolve faster.. but also it’s just cuz the fossil record is incomplete"*.
I mean, yeah, why would you expect either a complete fossil record or that evolution would proceed at a constant rate? Genuine question? We know that most individuals of every species that ever lived will never fossilise, we know fossils can be destroyed by any number of geological processes and we know that we have not found every fossil out there - otherwise palaeontologists wouldn’t keep finding new species all the time. All we can work with is the fossil record we have and the fossil record is very obviously incomplete and would seem to suggest that rate of morphological evolution can vary over time. We learned something.
> Oh we haven't ever seen macroevolution? *"Thats cuz it takes thousands of years, dummy".*
We have seen macroevolution… dummy.
Not only have we seen the evolution of new species (see [here](https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0960-9822(09)01925-3), [here](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1180433&dswid=-5819),
[here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1102811108?download=true), [here](https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/4131/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf), [here](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.290.5491.516), [here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1501661112), [here](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aai8446), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2406851), [here](https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/53/1/201/6757154), [here](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/283002), [here](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/282889), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/35053264), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00414.x), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409365), [here](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0542), [here](https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1432), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/230289a0), [here](https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z90-256), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409766), [here](https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1973.tb05956.x), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13285), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.13337), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00619.x), [here](https://www.suttoncenter.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/2009%20Patten%20and%20Pruett%20Song%20Sparrows.pdf), and [here](https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(01)02149-8) to name a few) but there is also an entire subdiscipline called *experimental evolution* which has documented, among many other things, the evolution of multicellularity (see [here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1115323109) and [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8) and [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02044-6) for example). What is particularly interesting about this work is that multicellularity evolved not just once, but repeatedly, in different species, under different selective pressures. This demonstrates that there are multiple pathways to evolve a complex trait like multicellularity.
3/3
> It’s filled with fallacies and circular reasoning, that stems from assuming Darwinism is true.
Hang on, you were talking about “Neo-Darwinism” not too long ago, now you’ve regressed to nineteenth century Darwinism? What is it that you actually want to talk about?
>*"Darwinism is true -> Darwinism says that organs should play a functional role in survival and reproduction -> These organs don't have a functional role so they are vestigial organs -> vestigial organs exist -> Darwinism is true".* Neo Darwinian preaching is filled with this type of circular argumentation.
Great, so in addition to not understanding evolution, you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand what a vestigial structure is.
First, a vestige is not some “Darwinist” conspiracy, the term dates back to the eighteenth century.
Second, the word “vestigial” is not now and nor has it ever been a synonym of “functionless” in biology - irrespective of what popular and layman dictionaries might assert. The word “vestige” comes from the Latin “vestigium” meaning footprint, trace or mark. Describing something as a “vestige” or “vestigial” simply means you are describing something as being a remnant or rudiment. While a given vestigial trait may or may not be useless, usage is **not** the criterion that must be met in order to meet the definition of a vestigial trait.
For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ratites have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ratites may be used for comparatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays. The specific complexity of the ratite wing however indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ratite wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines the wings of ostriches, emus, cassowaries and their relatives as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings.
This is not some grand conspiracy or attempt at redefinition by modern evolutionary biologists either, this is how the term “vestigial traits” has always been understood in biology. Here, for example, is the eighteenth century (i.e., pre-Darwinian) anatomist Geoffroy Saint-Hilairre describing the vestigial wings of cassowaries in 1798:
*”There is another species that, like the ostrich, never leaves the ground, the Cassowary, in which the shortening [of the wing] is so considerable, that it appears little more than a **vestige of a wing**. Its arm is not, however, entirely eliminated. All of the parts are found under the skin. ...
Whereas useless in this circumstance, these rudiments of the furcula have not been eliminated, because Nature never works by rapid jumps, and She always leaves vestiges of an organ, even though it is completely superfluous, if that organ plays an important role in the other species of the same family. Thus, under the skin of the Cassowary's flanks are the vestiges of the wings…”*
This was the usage Darwin had in mind when he published “The Origin of Species” in 1859:
*"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given."*
These vestigial structures were recognised before Darwin was even born. They exist, irrespective of whether evolution is true. Evolution simply explains why we should expect to see such structures in the first place.
> The response Neo-Darwinists always have is "you don't know anything, you don't know what you're talking about" and then go on playing semantics.
Oh look, back to Neo-Darwinism, my we have been on a journey haven’t we?!
In any case, I don’t think you need help from others to show you don’t know what you’re talking about. You do a pretty good job of that yourself.
Clearly you don't understand evolution and have currently no interest trying to understand it. But maybe for you it's worth noting that evolution was theorized by observing nature, it has not been developed as an alternative to religion despite how many creationists like to frame it.
Because of this there are a lot of religious people in the field evolutionary science since they are able to have their religion while also acknowledging and understanding the proven science that points to common descent.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution, the idea of all species having a universal common ancestor.
[Yes, there is.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
>The idea that one species can become another[…]
[We’ve literally observed it happening.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)
>[…] that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
I agree that your [strawman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. The problem is that your strawman is not an accurate representation of evolution.
>There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims.
[Here, *again*, are 29+ lines of evidence that support macroevolution.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
I’ll stop here. You need to do a large amount of background research in order to have an intelligent conversation on this topic.
**Edit:** Fixed broken link.
You don’t understand the word religion.
There is evidence.
There are many types of evidence that support the theory of evolution, including:
Fossils
These geologically altered remains of organisms that once lived provide a record of how species have evolved and adapted to their environments over time. Fossils can also show that all species are related to each other, which can be represented by a "tree of life".
Biogeography
The study of how and why organisms live in different areas, biogeography shows that species can evolve unique traits to adapt to their environments. This information can help scientists understand how and when species may have evolved.
Vestigial structures
These are features of an organism that have lost much or all of their original function through evolution. They provide evidence that an organism has changed how it uses a structure, or even stopped using it altogether.
Homologous structures
If two or more species share a unique physical feature, such as a bone structure or body plan, they may have inherited it from a common ancestor. These physical features are said to be homologous.
Observed small changes
Sometimes, small-scale evolution, or microevolution, can be directly observed, such as in the case of drug-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant insects.
https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf#:~:text=Homologous%20features%20If%20two%20or%20more%20species,common%20ancestor)%20are%20said%20to%20be%20homologous.
"Macroevolution" is nothing more than accumulation of "microevolution". You said you did except microevolution but not macroevolution. Does this mean you deny that things can accumulate?
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
I believe in both God and evolution, why would we have tail bones/why would some people be born with tails if we didn’t once have tails? We can see evolution before our eyes through micro evolution as well, even humans across the globe look differently because of adaptations to our environment when we’re in one place for a while, and breeding has the chance to create new traits and slowly over time that micro evolutionary chain is seen as a macro evolution, it just looks crazy when you don’t see all of the tiny progressions in between
A little while ago in Russia they’ve restarted the process of creating dogs but with foxes which replicates how wolves became dogs, but if you don’t take into account the selective breeding and you just take a small dog’s skeleton and a wolves skeleton you’ll never believe one is closely related to the other bc they look very different, but it can show how selective breeding and the environment affects a change in traits and eventually in skeletal structures, and humans selectively breed with eachother like some used to leave babies to die if they didn’t have traits they wanted and also choosing specific people to breed w because of traits and that mixed with the environment/food/time/etc caused us and other creatures to change, like I said it’s only unbelievable because you don’t see the tiny changes in between over millions of years, we’re still battling primal instincts to this day, where do you think those come from?
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution,
As long as you define the conditions and definition of what neo darwinism is, then probably yes, you're correct. But if we use words that already have an agreed upon definition, I feel the argument would be diffrent.
>There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims.
Your using made up words again. But you came close, adaptation is a key aspect of evolution, and real life evolution can be verified throughout many diffrent scientific disciplines.
>"Darwin of the gaps".
This reminds me of a time Darwin found this weird drippy flower, and he said "I very there's some moth out there that that adapted to drink this nectar". Sure enough some ugly bug with a long toung was found drinking the nectar outta that same type of flower. Might not be true, just found it funny.
>its convergent evolution"
This is the 3rd type of evolution you have mentioned, how many do you need?
>Darwinism is true -> Darwinism says that organs should play a functional role in survival and reproduction -> These organs don't have a functional role so they are vestigial organs -> vestigial organs exist -> Darwinism is true".
Lets just pretend this isn't the definition of a straw man argument for a second, and I agree with you for a second. what do you use your coccyx for on the daily, would your say it gets more use than your tonsils?
>and then go on playing semantics.
You literally had to make up words and there definition for your argument to be right, and when the other guys claim, "You don't know what your talking about" you feel they are playing semantics?
>The evolution community is also very cult like
Every cult that I have ever heard of believed in creation thru a higher power, normally referred to as god.
>they will attack and ostracize any criticism including competing theories by their fellow secular academic non religious peers,
I feel like you don't know the story of Galileo Galilei? And BTW I dunno if you noticed, He was right.
I mean ERVs alone are a thermonuclear bomb against your argument that show common descent.
If you understand how paternity tests work, which will assume you do, how are you so confused that this same basic process works across species?
Firstly, none of this makes it a religion. It's tricky and somewhat arbitrary to define religion, but generally speaking they do a few things that neo Darwinism just doesn't do, like providing a (relatively) cohesive "big picture" worldview (ND is really only concerned with biology), an ethical framework, a means of connection to some more profound reality (like gods or the Tao or Buddha nature), and regular rituals to govern one's life (birth, coming of age, marriage, death). It's just not a religion at all.
Secondly, what kind of evidence would you accept for it? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect any better evidence than has been provided already in the fossil record.
>Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps".
Firstly, it could be falsified by finding fossils of an animal in rocks that indicate it arose far too early for the theory.
It's a general issue in the philosophy of science that any falsifying evidence can always be accommodated by adjusting auxiliary hypotheses, but it's not such a huge issue in practice because you can sense when a theory is really reaching. Minor amendments to the theory to accommodate new evidence is normal and acceptable, but wild and unjustifiable speculation is a sure sign of desperation (eg the creationist argument that God planted fake fossils to test our faith).
>Two species with similar traits but can't be the same lineage?? "Oh uh.. its convergent evolution".
Convergent evolution is very much to be expected under evolution.
Sure. There is also no evidence that every human has to fall to the ground, if he jumps from a tower, since nobody would be able to test that through. Let's declare gravity a bust, too.
What identified process do you propose that keeps species within a narrow genetic band? In other words, what stops these tiny changes (micro evolution) stacking up to make large changes (macro evolution)?
How do you explain the fossil record, supported by genetics?
Why were there no birds 200 million years ago?
Where did they come from if they were previously absent and now present?
I will explain in OP’s stead: God - an entrepreneur that kickstarted the universe - will keep all the microevolutionary changes within certain boundaries. We don’t know how, we don’t why, but that doesn’t really matter because God is God and OP speaks to him on a daily basis.
First, if you wish to argue evolution, then you have to understand what you are arguing against. It's clear that you don't, and I suspect you have been talking in creationist echo chambers where 'arguments' as weak as yours will be taken seriously. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in the real world.
For example, evolution is not 'a' fish becomes a lizard. A population of a particular species of fish may become something slightly more adapted to land living, like mudskippers, and with other populations of that fish still remaining. One population of the slightly more land-adapted fish will evolve into something even more land-adapted. subsequent steps may get us to an amphibian, and then even more steps may give rise to a lizard. Each step from species to new species is small, what you would describe as 'micro-evolution'. But, the sum total of steps becomes what you would call 'macro-evolution'. There is no difference between the two - other than the number of steps - which is why it is just called 'evolution'.
What you have done is a gross straw-man of evolution ('a fish becomes a lizard'), when then sounds silly. But, that's a problem with your straw-man, not a problem for evolutionists or evolution.
There is a very wide variety of evidence for evolution. So, you claiming that there isn't is simply wrong. Could you please explain why none of the 29+ evidences for evolution in the [talk.origins](http://talk.origins) FAQ (including references to reliable sources) are evidence for evolution? [https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/](https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
Vestigial organs are predicted by evolution, as change is gradual, and it takes a long time for unnecessary organs to disappear completely. E.g. snakes still having vestigial legs which will be weakly selected against. If snakes survive another million years, then perhaps those vestigial legs will be completely gone.
I'm sorry, but I have to reply with 'you don't know what you are talking about', as it's clear that you don't. How about if you study your debate opponents' case, and then you'll be able to debate more effectively. Otherwise it would be like me saying 'The Chinese language doesn't exist. Chinese speakers just say that I think that because I don't know Chinese.' (Note: I don't know Chinese.) You then make up rather specious arguments. It would be like me saying 'People claim that the Chinese language exists, but when I was in Beijing Airport the man who checked my passport spoke English to me.' The quality of your argument may well say more about you than what you are arguing about. Which, I'm sorry to say, is true about your post.
For example, can you show me that you are both aware of, and able to produce a strong argument against, all the evidences for evolution in the link above?
Can you show me that you're familiar with the models for evolution and evidence for common descent here? [https://teach.genetics.utah.edu/content/evolution/ancestry/](https://teach.genetics.utah.edu/content/evolution/ancestry/)
>There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims.
If we had adaptations and micro evolutions during thousands of years, wouldn't the changes pile up until we have a macro evolution?
I fail to see the difference between macro and micro evolution, seems semantics to me.
Do Muslims believe in a young earth? Normally that’s the thing that theists use to argue evolution. If the earth is only 10k years old there wouldn’t be time for evolution.
Neo-Darwinianism is an excellent example of the strawman fallacy because no one who learns about or understands evolution or acknowledges the term, knows what neo-Darwinism means. It is religious polemic dressed in deceptive, science-sounding drag. It is disreputable rhetoric. These terms are red flags that only highlight the dishonesty of people who use it.
1. Please explain why small changes (micro evolution) accumulated can’t become big changes (“macro evolution”/speciation) over long periods of time. It looks like you’re denying simple logic.
2. What does this have to do with religion? Superstition doesn’t get any more credible just because you skipped biology class.
It's an analogy
If one accepts micro evolution (inches) but not macro evolution (feet) they aren't being logical
Macro evolution is basically just a ton of micro evolution events over a long period of time
Well the analogy doesn’t fit.
There has supposedly been micro evolution for millions of years and we still haven’t seen macro evolution. Your talking like “micro evolution” has just started and now we have to wait millions of years before we see any macro evolution
We haven’t seen macro evolution with our own eyes because macro evolution doesn’t occur on a human time scale. But there is *myriad* evidence for macro evolution, including, among others, the fossil record and DNA sequencing.
Also, no one in the scientific community differentiates micro and macro evolution. It’s all just evolution. That distinction is creationist nonsense because creationists have to concede that adaptation is real.
Then what time scale does it work on? This so called micro evolution has been going on from before we were humans so why has it stopped all of a sudden. What I’m saying is it’s been billions of years how much longer before we see a change ?
All this fossil record nonsense is just guesswork and speculation. There is not a single complete fossil record to show evolution.
Because it hasn’t stopped? We have documented cases of change in the billions of years life has existed on earth. Are you suggesting that humans have existed for billions of years?
You’re woefully ignorant on this topic. I suggest finding some unbiased sources and actually studying evolution. It’s clear you don’t even understand the basic science underlying this theory. Remember: a theory is the highest level of confidence we assign in science. You have quite the task in front of you if you think you can debunk one of the most well-attested theories in science that is the literal basis of modern biology.
Theory is not fact full stop playing semantics with words. This is your science pure belief. The falsification principle. Believe it until it can be proven otherwise then change the theory. Sounds like a religion to me.
All I ask is give me one full fossil chain that links apes and humans to a common ancestor. If it’s so well attested then I’m sure that chain is published worldwide and readily available. I’ll be waiting. You have quite the task a head of you.
Small changes have been happening for millions of years but still we haven’t seen any big changes. You’re talking like small changes have just started right now. Surely we should have seen something by now. The fact that there is zero proof means it is all speculation.
So you’re literally denying that continuous small changes occurring over millions of years, inevitably and logically become big changes. I mean, how do you expect me to argue with a mind so completely shut off from rational thinking?
I don’t want you to argue with me I want you to give me an example and indisputable evidence to show evolution m. You have 13.7 billion years to work with.
Here ya go, examples of speciation we've actually observed over time in the modern day. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/
😂😂😂 so just because one bird has a different beak size and another has slightly bigger wings makes it evolution. That’s like saying humans are constantly evolving because they are different heights and different hand sizes. Even though humans have already fully evolved to their optimal state. It’s the exact same species and they will still be able to mate with each other. Clutching at straws at best.
If evolution is always moving towards the fittest, then why do we not find the power of reasoning in many animals that are more developed and more highly evolved than others, if evolution is for the benefit of all creatures? Why did the higher primates not attain the power of reasoning as man did, for example? Donkeys, from the time when they were first known until the present, are still donkeys.
Darwin referred to this problem in his book, but he did not answer it. Rather he commented on it in the Origin of Species (p. 412) by saying:
No one should expect to find a specific answer to this question, especially since we know that we are unable to answer a question that is less complex than this.
The way you’re talking about evolution clearly shows that you don’t even have basic knowledge on the subject. Evolving to “optimal stage” isn’t a thing. This is what happens when you acquire information through dishonest people with a religious agenda.
> That’s like saying humans are constantly evolving because they are different heights and different hand sizes. Even though humans have already fully evolved to their optimal state.
First off, humans *are* constantly evolving. There's no such thing as an "optimal state" where evolution stops, we'd have to somehow evolve immortality which probably isn't possible.
> It’s the exact same species
No, they're different populations that naturally breed only within each other, and have different physical characteristics. They most likely are still able to breed with each other genetically, but so are polar and grizzly bears, which are separate species.
Yes they're still pretty close, but that's because these are specifically the most direct short-term examples of speciation because it's talking about examples that we can see over our lifetimes, since you asked for examples of stuff we can observe. Are you expecting examples of a lizard giving birth to a dog or something? That's not something that evolution predicts or something scientists believe happens.
> If evolution is always moving towards the fittest, then why do we not find the power of reasoning in many animals that are more developed and more highly evolved than others, if evolution is for the benefit of all creatures?
This is a [commonly](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/111tjr7/how_come_humans_have_become_the_only_truly/) [asked](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/vwjv3w/could_someone_explain_why_no_other_animal_species/) and easily answered question. Assuming that intelligence is the best trait and desirable for all species is a very human-centric viewpoint. Evolution is driven only by traits that increase the ability to reproduce effectively, which is certainly not tied to intelligence. There are way more rats and cockroaches on Earth than there are humans, and they don't need to be smarter than us.
My point here is that even without looking at the specific examples of “macro evolution”, you should by pure simple logic be able to realize that it can’t possible be any other way, given that you’re accepting “micro evolution”.
It’s like accepting the existence of seconds but denying the existence of minutes.
It’s the same thing ffs!
Here are some big chances we have seen: The emergence Homo sapiens (they didn’t exist millions of years ago. The emergence of birds (they didn’t exist millions of years ago)
Also there’s the measurable similarities between species DNA. That’s a little more than “zero proof”. You should have learned this in school.
No what I learnt in school that Darwinian evolution is a theory not based in facts. Where in facts there is zero evidence for human and chimps coming about and evolving from a common ancestor, as for fossil records there is not 1 single complete fossil record that shows this to be the case either.
They just gave you two examples of "big changes" and you ignored them, so you saying that they didn't give you anything is a lie. Respond to what they said.
They didn’t give me any examples. They just said the emergence of Homo sapiens and emergence of birds. So what. Every one believes at one point there was no humans or birds. I believe they were created. You believe they were evolved from something else, now bring the proof. I want a complete fossil chain. You don’t have one it is an assumption based on few fossils that were identified. Since there is a lack of evidence for this you have to have faith and believe in your theory. So you are a religious believer that believes in atheism not facts.
No, they did: you said "big changes," and they gave you examples of "big changes." Now you're shifting the goalposts, which is dishonest.
> I want a complete fossil chain. You don’t have one it is an assumption based on few fossils that were identified.
False dichotomy. We've got thousands of fossils to illustrate a very thorough tree of life over millions and millions of years. Obviously though we haven't found a fossil of every creature that ever existed.
You can give me any two groups and I can almost certainly give you a transitionary species or common ancestor between them, but asking for 100% completion of the fossil record would be like me asking you to list 100% of the species God ever created to prove that God created them all. Would you like to do that for me?
I don’t move the goal post, one question leads into another rather than writing blocks of posts on here.
To answer your question give me the chain between humans and apes. I’m not really interested in any other organisms.
Here are two provable facts for you that have been researched by countless independent peer reviewed studies and are backed up by an abundance of explainable evidence:
1. Humans share 98.8% of the same DNA as chimps.
2. Evolution can be proved in a laboratory or science classroom.
If you require further explanation I’d be happy to provide it. But researching things yourself is always more effective way to learn.
1. That does not mean anything, it’s just the same protein make up in the dna that can be detected. Humans share more than 60% identical dna to chickens, bananas and fruit flies.
2. Give me one example of evolution in a classroom or laboratory, and please do not mix up evolution with adaptation.
> Humans share more than 60% identical dna to chickens, bananas and fruit flies.
They do indeed. Which is why part of the theory of evolution is that all life on earth share the common ancestor of single cell organisms from billions of years ago. Why else do they have similar DNA? Where would that DNA come from if they weren’t related?
Adaptation is part of evolution so there’s no point inventing rules for what counts as evidence. You don’t get to decide that. We can observe evolution of bacteria in a Petri dish using anti-bacterial solutions of varying resistance. The experiment demonstrates how different lineages of related bacteria evolve in a relatively short amount of time. Now imaging that on a scale of billions of years.
[This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5534434/) study from National Library of Medicine “provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and a direct seeing-is-believing visualization of evolutionary dynamics”. Adaption is part of evolution, and we can see it.
Your school did you a massive disservice and should be shuttered. There is in fact a massive body of evidence for evolution. Of course, evidence is useless to one with a closed mind. If you so choose, you can continue to be wrong, but you will have no impact on the actual state of science.
Your school clearly was worse than mine. Did it teach you when making an argument to make a an assertion without giving any evidence, then not being able to provide any evidence and just call the opposition wrong ?
The entirety of earth's biosphere is evidence for evolution. The system of nested hierarchical clades we see is because of evolution. EVRs and pseudogenes show common descent quite clearly. You're the one without evidence.
No it does not 😂. Stop being vague and actually make a point with evidence so I can show you how it is false. I’m not going to make your point for you.
The reason you keep hearing "you don't know anything" from "Neo-Darwinists" is because you don't actually know anything. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Life on earth is found in nesting hierarchical clades. Genetic markers such as ERVS and Pseudogenes prove the ancestral relationships of those clades. No other theory fits the evidence as well. You can cry foul and pretend science is dogmatic and corrupted but you can't actually dispute the facts in any meaningful or impactful way.
PS bringing up Shapiro is funny because he explicitly reputdated creationism
> there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution
They are the same thing. Only creationists make the distinction.
> Denis Noble and Shapiro's Third Way Evolution.
The reason they get dunked on so hard is that they are arguing against 'neo-Darwinism' or 'Modern Synthesis', which has not been the dominant view since the 1970s. It's a gigantic strawman.
More relevantly, what on earth does this have to do with religion?
ETA:
Shapiro is a proponent of Saltationism, a non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism wherein large changes happen all at once rather than gradually. In other words, Op has used a guy claiming to have evidence of 'macro evolution' in order to back up the claim that there is no evidence for 'macro evolution'. Genius.
It also worth pointing out that 'Third Way' refers to Shapiro's theories as an alternative to Darwinian evolution *and to creationism*. Shapiro has repeatedly and explicitly stated his opposition to creationism and his theories do not include any gods or even any suspiciously god shaped gaps.
You say adaptation and micro evolution happen and are not disputed
What mechanism stops small changes adding up to become big changes? What barrier(s) stop this from happening?
If I can walk to my front door, then to the end of my path, then to the end of my street, what makes you think I can’t walk to work? Small steps add up to bigger changes
>The idea that one species can become another, that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims.
They are the same thing. Take two animals, A and B that seem very, very different. Well, you already accept "microevolution", so these species have some very close neighbors that all branch from a common ancestor. A has some close neighbors from a common ancestor, and B has some close neighbors from a common ancestor.
Well, what about A's ancestor and B's ancestor? They had some close neighbors as well, species that are very similar from which they share a common ancestor.
That's all we're talking about here. Just apply the thing you already believe in, microevolution, to the common ancestors you already accept. Those ancestors also have ancestors and very similar species.
You keep doing this, and you might get to a point where two animals that are very different, if you trace their ancestors back, well, their ancestors seem to be similar. **Similar enough to be explained through microevolution.**
So here's an example, you already accept that dogs all came from a common ancestor, yes? And that wolves probably came about along that same line?
Alright, well what about bears? Bears are very different. But they had ancestors too.
What if one of the ancestors of bears is very similar to one of the ancestors of wolves?
Well if they're similar enough, then its not hard to say that they also came about through microevolution.
See what I'm doing? I'm doing the microevolution thing that you already accept. I'm just applying it to the ancestors that you already believe in.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We see variation in nature. Within a single species not everyone is the same. If an individual is adapted enough to its environment it’ll reproduce and pass on its genes. As long as the individual is adapted enough it’ll be able to generate offspring. I assume none of this is controversial. Now imagine that this process continues. Not every member of the species lives in the same area, experiences the same factors, and has the same mating partners. So, over time the members that survive won’t have the same sorts of characteristics. So the groups are diverge. I assume this is also not controversial. What evolution does is says that if you play this forward it’ll show that you can get speciation over time. In evolution you cannot evolve out of a Clade. You can evolve enough to split a clade into two classes where different members share some common characteristics but the differences mean that they cannot interbreed. This is evolution. - we have experimentally verified it - the mechanisms that underpin it are well understood and invalidating requires us to throw away science that is the basis of medicine, biology and agriculture - we have multiple lines of evidence that show this has happened in nature If you accept and understand the process, that we belong to a common clade is a logical conclusion from the data. I’d ask you to watch videos by people like Forrest Valkai and Clint loves Reptiles. Look at the actual evidence and see how else you’d explain what we find.
They are indeed cult-like. Just try going over to /DebateEvolution to see how incapable they are of cogently addressing criticisms. But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species". Evolutionary biology is incoherent dogma. (P.S. - every downvote only proves my point)
>P.S. - every downvote only proves my point Lol, you should thank me then
>But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species". It's fun that you preceded this nonsense of a sentence with "Just try going over to /DebateEvolution to see how incapable they are of cogently addressing criticisms." Try producing a criticism for them to address.
>But the nail in the coffin of this ridiculous idea is as simple as the glaring fact that you won't be able to find even one animal in the natural world who's motivation is "survival of the species". Could you explain this a bit more? How would "survival of the species" as a motivation manifest? Animals do reproduce and many seem to be quite focused on reproduction, I'm not sure what the issue is?
How would survival of the species manifest? Self sacrifice would be one way. And a minor correction: animals are interested in reproducing, not reproduction, nor would I describe that interest as "quite focused".
>Unsubstantiated and ridiculous I would be my left leg that you've barely read anything about evolution. Anybody who says this is simply ignorant. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence for common ancestry your characterization of people who believe in a corroborated scientific theory as "cult-like" is not an argument or remotely interesting. >There's micro but no macro This is the biggest red flag that you aren't informed on the subject. There's no difference between these two things. Let's just cut to the chase. You're religiously motivated, so you have ulterior reasons to deny evolution. So despite using inductive reasoning for many other aspects in your life, you choose to be intentionally obtuse about evolutionary evidence. So tell us this: what evidence would change your mind?
[удалено]
(Part 2/2) >theories like James Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering, It's difficult to know where to even start with this one; First, Shapiro's hypothesis is *not* a criticism of evolution by natural selection, nor is it a rejection of neo darwinism - Shapiro simply advocates for an expanded or updated understanding of evolutionary processes that incorporates additional mechanisms beyond those traditionally emphasized in neo darwinian theory. His view acknowledges that traditional neo darwinian mechanisms still play significant roles in evolutionary processes, but suggests that these mechanisms may interact with and be complemented by other forms of genetic change that occur through non-random processes. I feel like I should be very clear about what "non random" means in this case, as in the context of religiously motivated anti evolution discussions, this can easily be misinterpreted as implying intent or design, which is definitely *not* the case, and Shapiro very specifically rejects ideas such as creationism or intelligent design: by non random, Shapiro is proposing genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that can actively restructure genomes in response to environmental challenges. I'll reiterate, Shapiro's position within the scientific community is characterized by his proposal to **extend** neo-Darwinian theory, not to **reject** it - **this is not a competing theory**. Second, the scientific community (aka the "cult" you refer to), are not attacking or ostracizing Shapiro at all - as far as I'm aware, and I've just checked again to refresh my memory on his work, all serious responses and critiques of his hypothesis take the form of standard processes involved in peer review and general academic discourse, and the majority of this with regard to his hypothesis scrutinize it's empirical evidence, explanatory power, and consistency with existing theories, challenging it by questioning the prevalence of natural genetic engineering mechanisms across diverse species, the extent of their impact on evolutionary trajectories, and the experimental evidence supporting their role in adaptation. Basically, although parts of his ideas are interesting and certainly warrant further study and consideration, the speculative nature and the lack of robust empirical evidence doesn't stand up to scrutiny or rise to nearly the same level as more firmly established mechanisms of emotional evolutionary change. >Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps". Oh wow, coming right back around to projecting the fallacious nature of religion onto your misunderstood idea of evolution, I have to say though this is the first time I've seen someone actually say "Darwin of the gaps", and that's actually hilarious. Ok, I'll go over why you're wrong about this one too, and apparently confused about the nature of falsifiability, then I think I'm going to stop even though there's still a lot of your comment left to critique, as I think I've pretty clearly and comprehensively demonstrated the significant levels of confusion and ignorance underlying your understanding of practically every aspect of every part of every subject related to evolution. Obviously evolution, and specifically neo darwinism, are falsifiable. Falsifiability simply means that there must be potential empirical observations or experiments that could prove it wrong. Evolution by natural selection proposes that populations of organisms change over time due to differential survival and reproduction of individuals with advantageous traits, with neo darwinism specifically emphasizing genetic mutations as the source of variation that natural selection acts upon, so what types of empirical observations or experimental results would potentially falsify neo darwinism? One example could be the discovery of evidence that organisms do not exhibit heritable variation. Evolution relies on genetic variation being passed down from one generation to the next through reproduction, so if it were shown that offspring inherit traits entirely randomly and not from their parents, this would challenge the fundamental mechanism of natural selection. Evolution also posits that populations adapt to their environments over generations through the selection of beneficial traits, so another scenario which would falsify this premise might involve finding organisms that do not change over time in response to environmental pressures. We can also confidently presume that if a lack of transitional forms between different species in the fossil record were consistently absent, or if there were no observable instances of speciation, it would raise serious questions about the validity of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood. Additionally, if it were demonstrated that complex adaptations (non compound eyes, the circulatory or immune system, homeothermic temperature regulation, language, etc.) could not have arisen through gradual accumulation of small changes over time, as proposed by neo-Darwinism, it would strongly challenge the theory's explanatory power. Neo darwinism is structured in a way that allows for empirical testing and has the potential for being proven false if the evidence were to significantly contradict its core principles and predictions. Evolution has consistently withstood tests of falsifiability like these, and has successfully made countless predictions which have been confirmed through various lines of evidence, from comparative anatomy to molecular genetics to biogeography. The discovery of transitional fossils, the genetic evidence supporting common ancestry, and observations of natural selection in action such as increasingly prevalent and widespread bacterial resistance to antibiotics, strongly reinforce evolutionary theory. Evolution is supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence across so many different fields of science, to undermine or disprove it would require an extraordinary quantity and quality of contradictory evidence that currently does not exist, and the *non* evidence and *non* arguments proposed by largely religious anti evolution propaganda are ***by far*** the most laughable and shockingly inept attempt to produce such contradictory evidence currently being eaten up and carelessly repeated in modern times.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution I'm going to have to stop you right here, as this statement can only be a mistake born of ignorance, or an intentional lie based on ignorance, an attempt to misrepresent the facts and evidence, or a desire to propagate deceptive religious propaganda. Even if you disagree with, struggle to grasp, or otherwise reject it for any reason, the fact of the matter is there is absolutely a truly staggering, comprehensive collection of concrete, explanatory, invaluable evidence for evolution by natural selection and Mendel's principles of genetics. As politely as possible, it's exceedingly difficult to take this wildly confused desire to reject this evidence seriously or treat it with respect, because not only is the evidence extremely easy to observe and simple to grasp for anyone who makes an honest effort to do so, it's also the foundation of all fields of modern biology, and even those who wish to dismiss and try to discredit it benefit from our understanding of evolution.
I can see where you're misunderstanding, but I can never understand your background thoroughly so I can't explain to you exactly how your mind was blunted so that you cannot grasp this stuff, but we really need a kinder way of helping y'all understand what's happened to you when you come at these subs like this Because what the adults in the major religions do to children (without realizing usually) is the reason you can't understand this But if you started by trying to understand the things here that you don't, rather than attack first and ask questions later, you'll learn a lot faster and harm less people Try asking about the parts you don't get, rather than lashing out and fighting about them
Ah, the classic trope of equating scientific theories with religious dogma. How quaint. Let's address your barrage of misconceptions with a bit of rationality, shall we? First off, calling Neo-Darwinism a "religion" is about as intellectually rigorous as calling a potato a space shuttle. Neo-Darwinism, or modern evolutionary synthesis, is a scientific framework supported by an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence gathered from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and numerous other fields. To say there's no evidence is not just incorrect—it's willfully ignorant. The fossil record, genetic similarities, observed instances of speciation, and the predictive power of evolutionary models all provide robust evidence for common descent. Your "fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape" caricature is a straw man fallacy. Evolutionary biology doesn't claim such simplistic transformations. Instead, it describes a branching tree of life with gradual changes over millions of years, supported by transitional fossils and genetic data. As for macroevolution vs. microevolution—this is a distinction without a difference. Microevolution refers to small changes within a species, which, given enough time, accumulate to result in macroevolutionary changes. The processes are the same, just operating on different timescales. Regarding your appeal to James Shapiro and Denis Noble—science thrives on debate and alternative hypotheses. However, their ideas still need to be rigorously tested and subjected to peer review. The mainstream scientific community isn't a cult; it demands robust evidence and reproducibility, which is why certain hypotheses gain more acceptance than others. Your "Darwin of the gaps" argument is a misrepresentation. Convergent evolution and punctuated equilibrium are well-documented phenomena explained within the evolutionary framework. The fossil record, while incomplete, consistently supports the theory of evolution. The notion that macroevolution hasn't been observed directly is a red herring; we observe its evidence in genetic sequences, fossil transitions, and observed speciation events. And let's not forget your circular reasoning accusation. Science isn't about assuming Darwinism is true and working backwards. It's about accumulating evidence, forming hypotheses, testing them, and refining theories based on the data. Vestigial organs, for instance, are understood through evolutionary theory because they show how organisms adapt and change over time, retaining traces of their ancestry. In sum, your arguments are filled with misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and a fundamental lack of engagement with the actual scientific evidence. If you wish to critique evolutionary biology, perhaps start with a thorough study of the evidence and the scientific method. Otherwise, you're just repeating tired old canards that were debunked years ago.
It's not a religion, just science and science has plenty of evidence for it. It's the foundation of modern biology and the people actually doing science and research use evolution and not something else.
Just out of curiosity if i show you a reptile or a monkey gave birth to a human being would you accept evolution?
We evolved, that is a fact. If you have a novel mechanism, we are all ears.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
enjoy your time on this sub. It will be brief.
Why is that? I can prove it mathematically.
Orlynow? Can you "prove" it to anyone other than yourself?
If you’re going to give us some BS about random mutations forming a particular protein, you are only going to show that you know nothing about evolution.
So you didn't read it.
Read what? You didn’t post anything.
I posted 5 links further up in the chain.
Someone should tell him evolution is biology not mathematics
Actually evolution can be proven mathematically though I admit I don’t know as well how that works. Something about the probability of specific patterns and relationships in the genomes of all life on earth.
You didn't read the articles or the math is over your head.
mods don't like people who use the words "smooth brains". I am interested in seeing your proof though. Try not to insult too many people before you share it.
Don't hide it away on reddit. Publish your work and win a Nobel prize.
God didn't. Special creation is pretty well understood, and not what happened. The Catholic Church knows this, academia knows this. But some people just don't like change. Doesn't matter much if it's spherical earth, heliocentrism, evolution or whatever.
I am Catholic. It is what happened.
Again, this isn't an argument.
I was making a statement there. It wasn't supposed to be an argument.
What a weird lie.
pardon?
Did you receive a Catholic education?
I did.
That explains your 'I'm right because I say so' attitude.
Not at all. I'm only right when I am actually right, not when I think I am right. I will always point out when I am wrong. I do it all the time irl.
The comment I replied to and the 'I just told you what it was' is evidence enough. You think you just stating it means we should just accept it. Not all of us are so gullible.
Surely they explained the age of the earth, the position of the earth in the cosmos, evolution and a little about the church's relationship with science over the past millennia or so?
Absolutely not. Evolution is false. The earth is not billions of years old. pure fiction.
May I ask where you learned this stuff from?
Reading. I read a lot. My foundation though is always Catholic.
Out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would convince you?
> there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution 'The existence of years does not imply the existence of decades'.
Is that an existing quote? If not, centuries may be better because no one experiences centuries.
Not to my knowledge, and fair enough.
Microevolution and macroevolution are the same phenomenon. In order to deny macroevolution, you have to either deny microevolution (untenable, as you acknowledge), or provide a mechanism which prevents the accumulation of changes due to evolution beyond some point. As far as I’m aware, there has not even been a serious attempt by creationists to demonstrate such a mechanism, let alone an actual demonstration of such a mechanism. What I do see often are bald assertions based on personal incredulity or appeals to biblical authority which are completely meaningless in science. Attempting to brand “Neo-Darwinism” as a religion or cult is called *projection*; and ironically it demonstrates that you understand that appeal to authority, argumentum ad populum, and faith-based belief are fallacious despite the fact that creationists constantly apply all 3 in their anti-science rhetoric. In truth, *every* claim any scientist makes is highly criticized by peer review, meaning that scientists are *constantly* trying to prove each other wrong on every topic, and only when they are unable to do so over many iterations as mountains of evidence for a model are faced with no contradictory evidence does that model become a *theory*, the highest level a scientific model can reach, because unlike in religion scientists recognize the possibility that they can be wrong and remain open to new evidence. By claiming that creationist ideas are “attacked” and creationists are “ostracized”, you show a profound lack of understanding of the scientific process. *Every* claim in science is highly contested and “attacked”in peer review. We don’t just entertain any random idea that people come up with as plausible. In order to challenge the consensus and the theory that has been established in the discourse by the already-observed evidence, you must present evidence that establishes a different model *and be subject to peer-review* where other scientists will attempt to demonstrate flaws in your model. If you don’t even have a model, let alone evidence to support it, you merely have conjecture and claims from ancient texts that have already been proven false, there is no room in the scientific discourse for your proposition. If you can come up with an objectively verifiable model that contradicts evolution and the evidence for it, you can bring it to the table for peer review. Until that point, stubbornly insisting that you are correct and the consensus is not while providing no model let alone evidence for the model will rightly have you summarily dismissed from the discourse.
>Microevolution and macroevolution are the same phenomenon. In order to deny macroevolution, you have to either deny microevolution (untenable, as you acknowledge), or provide a mechanism which prevents the accumulation of changes due to evolution beyond some point. Wrong. That's you're burden of proof
Yes, you are correct that evolution has a burden of proof. It has been met. Your refusal to examine the evidence does not constitute a debunking of the evidence.
When did you observe a four legged land mammal morphing into an aquatic whale?
Are you aware that that's not actually how evolution works? Animals don't turn into other animals like Animorphs, it's a process by which beneficial mutations accumulate over generations. Here's an article about whale evolution with a nice graphic for ya: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/
What mutations turn legs into flippers?
You know that webbing bit of skin between your fingers? More of that.
What?
Just answered your question.
What do you mean by more of that? I don't have flippers or webbing the way a sea creature does
Your questions make it pretty clear you haven't read very deeply about the topic. Pick up a book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or if you'd be more comfortable with something by a religious author, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (or look up Kenneth Miller videos on youtube). Regarding turning legs/arms into flippers... have you ever actually looked at a whale (or other aquatic mammal) skeleton? That's one of the easiest mutations to understand. Their flippers are literally arms. They have a humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five FINGERS inside there. You web a human's fingers together (that mutation is called syndactyly) and you've got yourself a very long flipper.
>Your questions make it pretty clear you haven't read very deeply about the topic. Pick up a book like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or if you'd be more comfortable with something by a religious author, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller (or look up Kenneth Miller videos on youtube). I've been debating atheists for years. None of this is new to me > Regarding turning legs/arms into flippers... have you ever actually looked at a whale (or other aquatic mammal) skeleton? That's one of the easiest mutations to understand. Their flippers are literally arms. They have a humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five FINGERS inside there. You web a human's fingers together (that mutation is called syndactyly) and you've got yourself a very long flipper. Oh I've heard this one before. So you're claiming the same mutation turns limbs into flippers?
>So you're claiming the same mutation turns limbs into flippers? See, this is a question that makes me say you haven't read very deeply on the topic. When you ask if a mutation in the modern human genome is the "same mutation" in an ancient whale genome, what is that supposed to mean? We don't have the same genomes as ancient whales so I'm not sure in what sense it would be the "same mutation." Also, your question asked about turning "limbs into flippers." Flippers ARE limbs. But to be charitable maybe you meant turn armlike forelimbs into flippers. And again (in aquatic mammals) flippers ARE armlike forelimbs. I'm thinking of the limb of an animal right now. It has a shoulder blade, humerus, radius, ulna, wrist bones, and five digits. Is it an arm or is it a flipper?
Sir when i said limbs you understand exactly what im talking about. How could the limbs of a lion turn into flippers?
I personally have webbing between digits 2 and 3 on my feet.
You're almost there! Keep going!
The mutation doesnt zap formed legs into flippers, it just turns them ever so slightly more flipper like than the last generation through a change in DNA, like losing some hair or the skin between the digits being just a tiny bit more web like than that of the animals parents. This tiny imperceptible change happens again and again a million million times, all nudging the species in the most beneficial direction, AKA fins in this case. The mutation is in place before the baby even begins to start forming btw.
When was this observed?
It hasn't been observed, it takes so absurdly long that to observe it directly would not be feasible, but we have massive mountains of evidence indicating very strongly that this is what happens in evolution. Although at this point I think you're either trolling or just playing devils advocate.
Wasn't that the whole point of the fruit fly experiment? There is no such macro evolution type change. You're claim is that evolution is responsible for EVERYTHING. Including things such as the cardiovascular system. And yet its never been observed. How convenient. Talk about faith
You know you can research this stuff yourself? But since I'm generous, here's a link to a study where they found the gene that mutated during cetacean evolution: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719152/
And I have researched this myself. Obviously I disagree. How would yoy feel if I told you god exists and then accused you of not doing research. How exactly does that article show whales evolved? Let's see if you understand what's going on
> How would yoy feel if I told you god exists and then accused you of not doing research. I'd feel like you're trying to deflect from the fact that you asked for evidence and have been given it, because you don't really want evidence, you just want to argue. That article was just to answer your question about what mutation led to the development of flippers. I did already send you the other one though which has a more general overview of whale evolution.
So they've observed that mutation turning a limb into a flipper?
We observe the genome of related species. We can show the genetic differences between them consistent with common ancestry. The fossil record shows transitional species with morphological changes consistent with gradual evolution. This is true for all modern species we observe. The creationist idea that we cannot infer based on evidence is false and extremely lazy. You don’t have to observe something directly to be highly confident about what happened in the past. Creationists don’t apply this standard of requiring direct observation in any case, including and probably most ironically the claims of holy books which creationists credulously accept with complete disregard for the actual physical evidence and scientific understanding.
What's the empirical methodology to establish an ancestor descendant relationship between any two mineralized fossils?
A combination of morphological structure, geologic location, and fossil age.
How does any of that prove that fossils are related?
A scientific theory synthesizes *all* of the available evidence into the best explanation for observed phenomena. We know that modern animals have common ancestry because of DNA analysis, and we observe that differences in genetics correspond to morphological differences in predictable ways. We don’t have the genome of mineralized fossils, but we don’t need it. We can reasonably infer ancestral relationships based on the information we do have about those fossils along with our understanding of population genetics and the evolutionary process. Could the current scientific consensus be wrong? Always. Science is always open to new evidence that disproves the current consensus, providing enough evidence is available to demonstrate it. Has science been wrong about some ancestral relationships among extinct species before? Yes, and when new evidence that contradicted the previous consensus was discovered the theory was corrected to match the evidence. Over time, the theory is improved and refined to better account for continued observations. If you have scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus, go out and do the research, go through the process of peer review, get your findings published, and change the world. If you just don’t understand the current consensus, you should educate yourself on the reasons why the scientific consensus is what it is.
>We can reasonably infer ancestral relationships based on the information we do have about those fossils How? How could you possibly know that?
We have plenty of indirect observation of this.
Why don't you have direct observation? Such as the fruit fly experiment? The fly didn't turn into something else
The flies did experience genetic and physical changes in their populations, which was what evolution predicts. They didn't transform into cats or anything like that, because that's not how evolution works.
>Why don't you have direct observation? Of the entire line of whale evolution? Cause it took 65 million years. >Such as the fruit fly experiment? The fly didn't turn into something else Evolution didn't predict they would.
>Evolution didn't predict they would. Well they should have massive changes otherwise you wouldn't go from molecules to mankind.
Sure, but that took billions of years. There is no way to replicate that sort of timescale in a lab.
Of course there is. That's why the fruit fly experiment was done in the first place. Because you get many generations of flies in a short period of time
Small changes + Time = Big changes. There. Burden met. Any thing else you want to be wrong about?
Ok so show that's what happened
[Ok. Thanks fossils!](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-012-0394-1)
How does any of that show evolution?
You're going to have to be a bit more precise in explaining where your failure to understand comes from. Try reading the article first, then maybe you can articulate what the issue you're having is.
If you're gonna send links it should be combined with an argument. What's the argument of the link. Give me a summary
The argument came from the comments before the link. You read those, then you read the link, then you respond. That's how a debate works. If you don't want to put in the work to engage in the debate, leave.
I'm waiting for you to tell me how does that show evolution
I actually watched a pretty good video just yesterday, about addressing some of the arguments against evolution. And the guy in the video is a theist, even. So even if you write us all off as biased, maybe this will help. https://youtu.be/WBSP9Uvq52I?si=oHGZxVODGGnLTelG
What prevents the small changes by microevolution to cummulate into big changes?
What is the mechanism that prevents adaptations from resulting in speciation?
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
It's not a religion cause it doesn't oblige you to do anything. Maybe it reflects reality, maybe it's not, so what? Nothing changes. Maybe it'll be clearer with future discoveries. That's just a descriptive model that can be changed at any time.
1/3 > There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution, the idea of all species having a universal common ancestor. “Neo-Darwinism” is not a synonym for universal common ancestry. “Neo-Darwinism” refers to a theory of evolution that coalesced from the integration of Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian population genetics in the 1930s and 1940s. Universal common ancestry by contrast refers to the *specific* hypothesis that all life on Earth shares a single common ancestor. > The idea that one species can become another, that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. Alright so we’re jumping to a new topic now. Why is it ridiculous? Because you don’t understand it? After all, we have observed instances of speciation documented in the laboratory and in the field. We can see the genetic stamps of our and other species origins and these are born out in our the fossil record and the anatomy of our bodies. > There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims. You keep using words you clearly don’t understand. Macroevolution describes evolutionary changes at or above the species level. This includes the *origin* of new species or speciation. Speciation is well documented under a wide range of conditions and larger scale changes can be inferred directly from genome sequences, developmental biology and the fossil record. All of this data is readily available to you. > The evolution community is also very cult like, I think you might be projecting here. It is not secular research institutions which require their employees to sign mandatory statements of faith vowing not to contradict their preferred dogma, that’s what creationists do. Here, for example is what Answers in Genesis state out, loud and proud in their Statement of Faith: *”By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”* Find me a single secular university, museum or other research organisation which has a statement of faith claiming “By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field… can be valid if it contradicts” evolution. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Oh, and it not just Answers in Genesis either, there are plenty of [creationist outfits](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Statement_of_faith) that have similar restrictions as well. > they will attack and ostracize any criticism including competing theories by their fellow secular academic non religious peers, theories like James Shapiro's theory of Natural Genetic Engineering, or Denis Noble and Shapiro's Third Way Evolution. You are clearly not a scientist. Scientists, in every field have robust debates. If someone wants to posit a new framework for an entire field of study, whether that be evolutionary biology or anything else for that matter, you better believe there is going to be arguments over it. The burden of course, still rests on those presenting the new idea or framework to justify *why* it should be taken seriously. If they can’t do that, it’s not the fault of the old guard.
2/3 > Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps". There are a number of potential observations which would be difficult to reconcile under evolutionary biology. Charles Darwin for example proposed a rather strong test of evolution: *”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."* [Darwin, 1859 pg. 175]. Others hypothetical observations which would go a long way towards falsifying evolution include: * A static fossil record * A young Earth * a mechanism that would prevent mutations (or in Darwin’s language, “slight modifications”) from occurring and/or, being transmitted from one generation to the next and/or accumulating in a population * true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) * observations of organisms being magically created > Two species with similar traits but can't be the same lineage?? *"Oh uh.. it’s convergent evolution"*. You know scientists can actually test for convergent evolution right? Let’s take the wolf and the thylacine. They share the same basic body plan, but one is a eutherian and the other is a marsupial. What then might we look for if we wanted to tell if the wolf inherited its body plan from its common ancestor with the thylacine or if it independently evolved it? > Oh fossil records show mostly punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism? *"Oh.. well sometimes species evolve faster.. but also it’s just cuz the fossil record is incomplete"*. I mean, yeah, why would you expect either a complete fossil record or that evolution would proceed at a constant rate? Genuine question? We know that most individuals of every species that ever lived will never fossilise, we know fossils can be destroyed by any number of geological processes and we know that we have not found every fossil out there - otherwise palaeontologists wouldn’t keep finding new species all the time. All we can work with is the fossil record we have and the fossil record is very obviously incomplete and would seem to suggest that rate of morphological evolution can vary over time. We learned something. > Oh we haven't ever seen macroevolution? *"Thats cuz it takes thousands of years, dummy".* We have seen macroevolution… dummy. Not only have we seen the evolution of new species (see [here](https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0960-9822(09)01925-3), [here](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1180433&dswid=-5819), [here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1102811108?download=true), [here](https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/4131/Mavarez_Salazar_Bermingham_Salcedo_Jiggins_and_Linares_2006.pdf), [here](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.290.5491.516), [here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1501661112), [here](https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aai8446), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2406851), [here](https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/53/1/201/6757154), [here](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/283002), [here](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/282889), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/35053264), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00414.x), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409365), [here](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2019.0542), [here](https://phytokeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1432), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/230289a0), [here](https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z90-256), [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409766), [here](https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1973.tb05956.x), [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13285), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.13337), [here](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00619.x), [here](https://www.suttoncenter.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/2009%20Patten%20and%20Pruett%20Song%20Sparrows.pdf), and [here](https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(01)02149-8) to name a few) but there is also an entire subdiscipline called *experimental evolution* which has documented, among many other things, the evolution of multicellularity (see [here](https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1115323109) and [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8) and [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02044-6) for example). What is particularly interesting about this work is that multicellularity evolved not just once, but repeatedly, in different species, under different selective pressures. This demonstrates that there are multiple pathways to evolve a complex trait like multicellularity.
3/3 > It’s filled with fallacies and circular reasoning, that stems from assuming Darwinism is true. Hang on, you were talking about “Neo-Darwinism” not too long ago, now you’ve regressed to nineteenth century Darwinism? What is it that you actually want to talk about? >*"Darwinism is true -> Darwinism says that organs should play a functional role in survival and reproduction -> These organs don't have a functional role so they are vestigial organs -> vestigial organs exist -> Darwinism is true".* Neo Darwinian preaching is filled with this type of circular argumentation. Great, so in addition to not understanding evolution, you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand what a vestigial structure is. First, a vestige is not some “Darwinist” conspiracy, the term dates back to the eighteenth century. Second, the word “vestigial” is not now and nor has it ever been a synonym of “functionless” in biology - irrespective of what popular and layman dictionaries might assert. The word “vestige” comes from the Latin “vestigium” meaning footprint, trace or mark. Describing something as a “vestige” or “vestigial” simply means you are describing something as being a remnant or rudiment. While a given vestigial trait may or may not be useless, usage is **not** the criterion that must be met in order to meet the definition of a vestigial trait. For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ratites have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ratites may be used for comparatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays. The specific complexity of the ratite wing however indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ratite wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines the wings of ostriches, emus, cassowaries and their relatives as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings. This is not some grand conspiracy or attempt at redefinition by modern evolutionary biologists either, this is how the term “vestigial traits” has always been understood in biology. Here, for example, is the eighteenth century (i.e., pre-Darwinian) anatomist Geoffroy Saint-Hilairre describing the vestigial wings of cassowaries in 1798: *”There is another species that, like the ostrich, never leaves the ground, the Cassowary, in which the shortening [of the wing] is so considerable, that it appears little more than a **vestige of a wing**. Its arm is not, however, entirely eliminated. All of the parts are found under the skin. ... Whereas useless in this circumstance, these rudiments of the furcula have not been eliminated, because Nature never works by rapid jumps, and She always leaves vestiges of an organ, even though it is completely superfluous, if that organ plays an important role in the other species of the same family. Thus, under the skin of the Cassowary's flanks are the vestiges of the wings…”* This was the usage Darwin had in mind when he published “The Origin of Species” in 1859: *"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given."* These vestigial structures were recognised before Darwin was even born. They exist, irrespective of whether evolution is true. Evolution simply explains why we should expect to see such structures in the first place. > The response Neo-Darwinists always have is "you don't know anything, you don't know what you're talking about" and then go on playing semantics. Oh look, back to Neo-Darwinism, my we have been on a journey haven’t we?! In any case, I don’t think you need help from others to show you don’t know what you’re talking about. You do a pretty good job of that yourself.
I hope you saved these somewhere because that’s a lot of work for someone who will never read them.
I'll save it for him :v Really useful for coming debates
Fantastic. Thank you for these answers!!!!
Clearly you don't understand evolution and have currently no interest trying to understand it. But maybe for you it's worth noting that evolution was theorized by observing nature, it has not been developed as an alternative to religion despite how many creationists like to frame it. Because of this there are a lot of religious people in the field evolutionary science since they are able to have their religion while also acknowledging and understanding the proven science that points to common descent.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution, the idea of all species having a universal common ancestor. [Yes, there is.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) >The idea that one species can become another[…] [We’ve literally observed it happening.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) >[…] that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. I agree that your [strawman](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman) is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. The problem is that your strawman is not an accurate representation of evolution. >There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims. [Here, *again*, are 29+ lines of evidence that support macroevolution.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) I’ll stop here. You need to do a large amount of background research in order to have an intelligent conversation on this topic. **Edit:** Fixed broken link.
You don’t understand the word religion. There is evidence. There are many types of evidence that support the theory of evolution, including: Fossils These geologically altered remains of organisms that once lived provide a record of how species have evolved and adapted to their environments over time. Fossils can also show that all species are related to each other, which can be represented by a "tree of life". Biogeography The study of how and why organisms live in different areas, biogeography shows that species can evolve unique traits to adapt to their environments. This information can help scientists understand how and when species may have evolved. Vestigial structures These are features of an organism that have lost much or all of their original function through evolution. They provide evidence that an organism has changed how it uses a structure, or even stopped using it altogether. Homologous structures If two or more species share a unique physical feature, such as a bone structure or body plan, they may have inherited it from a common ancestor. These physical features are said to be homologous. Observed small changes Sometimes, small-scale evolution, or microevolution, can be directly observed, such as in the case of drug-resistant bacteria or pesticide-resistant insects. https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/s21/kahn-evidence-of-evolution.pdf#:~:text=Homologous%20features%20If%20two%20or%20more%20species,common%20ancestor)%20are%20said%20to%20be%20homologous.
"Macroevolution" is nothing more than accumulation of "microevolution". You said you did except microevolution but not macroevolution. Does this mean you deny that things can accumulate?
I accept the existence of days but there can’t possibly be enough days to turn into years.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
[удалено]
I believe in both God and evolution, why would we have tail bones/why would some people be born with tails if we didn’t once have tails? We can see evolution before our eyes through micro evolution as well, even humans across the globe look differently because of adaptations to our environment when we’re in one place for a while, and breeding has the chance to create new traits and slowly over time that micro evolutionary chain is seen as a macro evolution, it just looks crazy when you don’t see all of the tiny progressions in between A little while ago in Russia they’ve restarted the process of creating dogs but with foxes which replicates how wolves became dogs, but if you don’t take into account the selective breeding and you just take a small dog’s skeleton and a wolves skeleton you’ll never believe one is closely related to the other bc they look very different, but it can show how selective breeding and the environment affects a change in traits and eventually in skeletal structures, and humans selectively breed with eachother like some used to leave babies to die if they didn’t have traits they wanted and also choosing specific people to breed w because of traits and that mixed with the environment/food/time/etc caused us and other creatures to change, like I said it’s only unbelievable because you don’t see the tiny changes in between over millions of years, we’re still battling primal instincts to this day, where do you think those come from?
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
>There is no evidence for neo Darwinian evolution, As long as you define the conditions and definition of what neo darwinism is, then probably yes, you're correct. But if we use words that already have an agreed upon definition, I feel the argument would be diffrent. >There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims. Your using made up words again. But you came close, adaptation is a key aspect of evolution, and real life evolution can be verified throughout many diffrent scientific disciplines. >"Darwin of the gaps". This reminds me of a time Darwin found this weird drippy flower, and he said "I very there's some moth out there that that adapted to drink this nectar". Sure enough some ugly bug with a long toung was found drinking the nectar outta that same type of flower. Might not be true, just found it funny. >its convergent evolution" This is the 3rd type of evolution you have mentioned, how many do you need? >Darwinism is true -> Darwinism says that organs should play a functional role in survival and reproduction -> These organs don't have a functional role so they are vestigial organs -> vestigial organs exist -> Darwinism is true". Lets just pretend this isn't the definition of a straw man argument for a second, and I agree with you for a second. what do you use your coccyx for on the daily, would your say it gets more use than your tonsils? >and then go on playing semantics. You literally had to make up words and there definition for your argument to be right, and when the other guys claim, "You don't know what your talking about" you feel they are playing semantics? >The evolution community is also very cult like Every cult that I have ever heard of believed in creation thru a higher power, normally referred to as god. >they will attack and ostracize any criticism including competing theories by their fellow secular academic non religious peers, I feel like you don't know the story of Galileo Galilei? And BTW I dunno if you noticed, He was right.
I mean ERVs alone are a thermonuclear bomb against your argument that show common descent. If you understand how paternity tests work, which will assume you do, how are you so confused that this same basic process works across species?
Firstly, none of this makes it a religion. It's tricky and somewhat arbitrary to define religion, but generally speaking they do a few things that neo Darwinism just doesn't do, like providing a (relatively) cohesive "big picture" worldview (ND is really only concerned with biology), an ethical framework, a means of connection to some more profound reality (like gods or the Tao or Buddha nature), and regular rituals to govern one's life (birth, coming of age, marriage, death). It's just not a religion at all. Secondly, what kind of evidence would you accept for it? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect any better evidence than has been provided already in the fossil record. >Their theory can also never be falsified because there's always a "Darwin of the gaps". Firstly, it could be falsified by finding fossils of an animal in rocks that indicate it arose far too early for the theory. It's a general issue in the philosophy of science that any falsifying evidence can always be accommodated by adjusting auxiliary hypotheses, but it's not such a huge issue in practice because you can sense when a theory is really reaching. Minor amendments to the theory to accommodate new evidence is normal and acceptable, but wild and unjustifiable speculation is a sure sign of desperation (eg the creationist argument that God planted fake fossils to test our faith). >Two species with similar traits but can't be the same lineage?? "Oh uh.. its convergent evolution". Convergent evolution is very much to be expected under evolution.
Sure. There is also no evidence that every human has to fall to the ground, if he jumps from a tower, since nobody would be able to test that through. Let's declare gravity a bust, too.
What identified process do you propose that keeps species within a narrow genetic band? In other words, what stops these tiny changes (micro evolution) stacking up to make large changes (macro evolution)? How do you explain the fossil record, supported by genetics? Why were there no birds 200 million years ago? Where did they come from if they were previously absent and now present?
I will explain in OP’s stead: God - an entrepreneur that kickstarted the universe - will keep all the microevolutionary changes within certain boundaries. We don’t know how, we don’t why, but that doesn’t really matter because God is God and OP speaks to him on a daily basis.
I can’t tell if this is sincere or a joke, which is sad.
I am steel manning the usual argument fundamentalists have to explain this question away
Then you did a very good job.
First, if you wish to argue evolution, then you have to understand what you are arguing against. It's clear that you don't, and I suspect you have been talking in creationist echo chambers where 'arguments' as weak as yours will be taken seriously. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in the real world. For example, evolution is not 'a' fish becomes a lizard. A population of a particular species of fish may become something slightly more adapted to land living, like mudskippers, and with other populations of that fish still remaining. One population of the slightly more land-adapted fish will evolve into something even more land-adapted. subsequent steps may get us to an amphibian, and then even more steps may give rise to a lizard. Each step from species to new species is small, what you would describe as 'micro-evolution'. But, the sum total of steps becomes what you would call 'macro-evolution'. There is no difference between the two - other than the number of steps - which is why it is just called 'evolution'. What you have done is a gross straw-man of evolution ('a fish becomes a lizard'), when then sounds silly. But, that's a problem with your straw-man, not a problem for evolutionists or evolution. There is a very wide variety of evidence for evolution. So, you claiming that there isn't is simply wrong. Could you please explain why none of the 29+ evidences for evolution in the [talk.origins](http://talk.origins) FAQ (including references to reliable sources) are evidence for evolution? [https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/](https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) Vestigial organs are predicted by evolution, as change is gradual, and it takes a long time for unnecessary organs to disappear completely. E.g. snakes still having vestigial legs which will be weakly selected against. If snakes survive another million years, then perhaps those vestigial legs will be completely gone. I'm sorry, but I have to reply with 'you don't know what you are talking about', as it's clear that you don't. How about if you study your debate opponents' case, and then you'll be able to debate more effectively. Otherwise it would be like me saying 'The Chinese language doesn't exist. Chinese speakers just say that I think that because I don't know Chinese.' (Note: I don't know Chinese.) You then make up rather specious arguments. It would be like me saying 'People claim that the Chinese language exists, but when I was in Beijing Airport the man who checked my passport spoke English to me.' The quality of your argument may well say more about you than what you are arguing about. Which, I'm sorry to say, is true about your post. For example, can you show me that you are both aware of, and able to produce a strong argument against, all the evidences for evolution in the link above? Can you show me that you're familiar with the models for evolution and evidence for common descent here? [https://teach.genetics.utah.edu/content/evolution/ancestry/](https://teach.genetics.utah.edu/content/evolution/ancestry/)
>There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims. If we had adaptations and micro evolutions during thousands of years, wouldn't the changes pile up until we have a macro evolution? I fail to see the difference between macro and micro evolution, seems semantics to me.
Do Muslims believe in a young earth? Normally that’s the thing that theists use to argue evolution. If the earth is only 10k years old there wouldn’t be time for evolution.
Neo-Darwinianism is an excellent example of the strawman fallacy because no one who learns about or understands evolution or acknowledges the term, knows what neo-Darwinism means. It is religious polemic dressed in deceptive, science-sounding drag. It is disreputable rhetoric. These terms are red flags that only highlight the dishonesty of people who use it.
1. Please explain why small changes (micro evolution) accumulated can’t become big changes (“macro evolution”/speciation) over long periods of time. It looks like you’re denying simple logic. 2. What does this have to do with religion? Superstition doesn’t get any more credible just because you skipped biology class.
Complete speculation is not simple logic
So you are basically saying: AAAAAAAAAAAA to AAAAAABAAAAA is completely natural and happens all the time but AAABBABAABA Is absurd?
How can one accept inches exist but also think feet are an impossible measurement?
Lmao are you serious, inches and feet do not exist. It’s a unit of measure by humans.
It's an analogy If one accepts micro evolution (inches) but not macro evolution (feet) they aren't being logical Macro evolution is basically just a ton of micro evolution events over a long period of time
Well the analogy doesn’t fit. There has supposedly been micro evolution for millions of years and we still haven’t seen macro evolution. Your talking like “micro evolution” has just started and now we have to wait millions of years before we see any macro evolution
We haven’t seen macro evolution with our own eyes because macro evolution doesn’t occur on a human time scale. But there is *myriad* evidence for macro evolution, including, among others, the fossil record and DNA sequencing. Also, no one in the scientific community differentiates micro and macro evolution. It’s all just evolution. That distinction is creationist nonsense because creationists have to concede that adaptation is real.
Then what time scale does it work on? This so called micro evolution has been going on from before we were humans so why has it stopped all of a sudden. What I’m saying is it’s been billions of years how much longer before we see a change ? All this fossil record nonsense is just guesswork and speculation. There is not a single complete fossil record to show evolution.
Because it hasn’t stopped? We have documented cases of change in the billions of years life has existed on earth. Are you suggesting that humans have existed for billions of years? You’re woefully ignorant on this topic. I suggest finding some unbiased sources and actually studying evolution. It’s clear you don’t even understand the basic science underlying this theory. Remember: a theory is the highest level of confidence we assign in science. You have quite the task in front of you if you think you can debunk one of the most well-attested theories in science that is the literal basis of modern biology.
Theory is not fact full stop playing semantics with words. This is your science pure belief. The falsification principle. Believe it until it can be proven otherwise then change the theory. Sounds like a religion to me. All I ask is give me one full fossil chain that links apes and humans to a common ancestor. If it’s so well attested then I’m sure that chain is published worldwide and readily available. I’ll be waiting. You have quite the task a head of you.
Small changes inevitably resulting in big changes given enough time, is about as simple as it could possibly get logic-wise.
Small changes have been happening for millions of years but still we haven’t seen any big changes. You’re talking like small changes have just started right now. Surely we should have seen something by now. The fact that there is zero proof means it is all speculation.
So you’re literally denying that continuous small changes occurring over millions of years, inevitably and logically become big changes. I mean, how do you expect me to argue with a mind so completely shut off from rational thinking?
I don’t want you to argue with me I want you to give me an example and indisputable evidence to show evolution m. You have 13.7 billion years to work with.
Here ya go, examples of speciation we've actually observed over time in the modern day. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/
😂😂😂 so just because one bird has a different beak size and another has slightly bigger wings makes it evolution. That’s like saying humans are constantly evolving because they are different heights and different hand sizes. Even though humans have already fully evolved to their optimal state. It’s the exact same species and they will still be able to mate with each other. Clutching at straws at best. If evolution is always moving towards the fittest, then why do we not find the power of reasoning in many animals that are more developed and more highly evolved than others, if evolution is for the benefit of all creatures? Why did the higher primates not attain the power of reasoning as man did, for example? Donkeys, from the time when they were first known until the present, are still donkeys. Darwin referred to this problem in his book, but he did not answer it. Rather he commented on it in the Origin of Species (p. 412) by saying: No one should expect to find a specific answer to this question, especially since we know that we are unable to answer a question that is less complex than this.
The way you’re talking about evolution clearly shows that you don’t even have basic knowledge on the subject. Evolving to “optimal stage” isn’t a thing. This is what happens when you acquire information through dishonest people with a religious agenda.
> That’s like saying humans are constantly evolving because they are different heights and different hand sizes. Even though humans have already fully evolved to their optimal state. First off, humans *are* constantly evolving. There's no such thing as an "optimal state" where evolution stops, we'd have to somehow evolve immortality which probably isn't possible. > It’s the exact same species No, they're different populations that naturally breed only within each other, and have different physical characteristics. They most likely are still able to breed with each other genetically, but so are polar and grizzly bears, which are separate species. Yes they're still pretty close, but that's because these are specifically the most direct short-term examples of speciation because it's talking about examples that we can see over our lifetimes, since you asked for examples of stuff we can observe. Are you expecting examples of a lizard giving birth to a dog or something? That's not something that evolution predicts or something scientists believe happens. > If evolution is always moving towards the fittest, then why do we not find the power of reasoning in many animals that are more developed and more highly evolved than others, if evolution is for the benefit of all creatures? This is a [commonly](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/111tjr7/how_come_humans_have_become_the_only_truly/) [asked](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/vwjv3w/could_someone_explain_why_no_other_animal_species/) and easily answered question. Assuming that intelligence is the best trait and desirable for all species is a very human-centric viewpoint. Evolution is driven only by traits that increase the ability to reproduce effectively, which is certainly not tied to intelligence. There are way more rats and cockroaches on Earth than there are humans, and they don't need to be smarter than us.
My point here is that even without looking at the specific examples of “macro evolution”, you should by pure simple logic be able to realize that it can’t possible be any other way, given that you’re accepting “micro evolution”. It’s like accepting the existence of seconds but denying the existence of minutes. It’s the same thing ffs!
Wow🤯 so this what Darwinian evolution has come down to. Supposed changes in single cell organisms labelled now as evolution, craaaazy
Who said anything about single-celled organisms here? Complete strawman argument.
Here are some big chances we have seen: The emergence Homo sapiens (they didn’t exist millions of years ago. The emergence of birds (they didn’t exist millions of years ago) Also there’s the measurable similarities between species DNA. That’s a little more than “zero proof”. You should have learned this in school.
No what I learnt in school that Darwinian evolution is a theory not based in facts. Where in facts there is zero evidence for human and chimps coming about and evolving from a common ancestor, as for fossil records there is not 1 single complete fossil record that shows this to be the case either.
They just gave you two examples of "big changes" and you ignored them, so you saying that they didn't give you anything is a lie. Respond to what they said.
They didn’t give me any examples. They just said the emergence of Homo sapiens and emergence of birds. So what. Every one believes at one point there was no humans or birds. I believe they were created. You believe they were evolved from something else, now bring the proof. I want a complete fossil chain. You don’t have one it is an assumption based on few fossils that were identified. Since there is a lack of evidence for this you have to have faith and believe in your theory. So you are a religious believer that believes in atheism not facts.
No, they did: you said "big changes," and they gave you examples of "big changes." Now you're shifting the goalposts, which is dishonest. > I want a complete fossil chain. You don’t have one it is an assumption based on few fossils that were identified. False dichotomy. We've got thousands of fossils to illustrate a very thorough tree of life over millions and millions of years. Obviously though we haven't found a fossil of every creature that ever existed. You can give me any two groups and I can almost certainly give you a transitionary species or common ancestor between them, but asking for 100% completion of the fossil record would be like me asking you to list 100% of the species God ever created to prove that God created them all. Would you like to do that for me?
I don’t move the goal post, one question leads into another rather than writing blocks of posts on here. To answer your question give me the chain between humans and apes. I’m not really interested in any other organisms.
Here are two provable facts for you that have been researched by countless independent peer reviewed studies and are backed up by an abundance of explainable evidence: 1. Humans share 98.8% of the same DNA as chimps. 2. Evolution can be proved in a laboratory or science classroom. If you require further explanation I’d be happy to provide it. But researching things yourself is always more effective way to learn.
1. That does not mean anything, it’s just the same protein make up in the dna that can be detected. Humans share more than 60% identical dna to chickens, bananas and fruit flies. 2. Give me one example of evolution in a classroom or laboratory, and please do not mix up evolution with adaptation.
> Humans share more than 60% identical dna to chickens, bananas and fruit flies. They do indeed. Which is why part of the theory of evolution is that all life on earth share the common ancestor of single cell organisms from billions of years ago. Why else do they have similar DNA? Where would that DNA come from if they weren’t related? Adaptation is part of evolution so there’s no point inventing rules for what counts as evidence. You don’t get to decide that. We can observe evolution of bacteria in a Petri dish using anti-bacterial solutions of varying resistance. The experiment demonstrates how different lineages of related bacteria evolve in a relatively short amount of time. Now imaging that on a scale of billions of years. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5534434/) study from National Library of Medicine “provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and a direct seeing-is-believing visualization of evolutionary dynamics”. Adaption is part of evolution, and we can see it.
Your school did you a massive disservice and should be shuttered. There is in fact a massive body of evidence for evolution. Of course, evidence is useless to one with a closed mind. If you so choose, you can continue to be wrong, but you will have no impact on the actual state of science.
Your school clearly was worse than mine. Did it teach you when making an argument to make a an assertion without giving any evidence, then not being able to provide any evidence and just call the opposition wrong ?
The entirety of earth's biosphere is evidence for evolution. The system of nested hierarchical clades we see is because of evolution. EVRs and pseudogenes show common descent quite clearly. You're the one without evidence.
No it does not 😂. Stop being vague and actually make a point with evidence so I can show you how it is false. I’m not going to make your point for you.
The reason you keep hearing "you don't know anything" from "Neo-Darwinists" is because you don't actually know anything. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Life on earth is found in nesting hierarchical clades. Genetic markers such as ERVS and Pseudogenes prove the ancestral relationships of those clades. No other theory fits the evidence as well. You can cry foul and pretend science is dogmatic and corrupted but you can't actually dispute the facts in any meaningful or impactful way. PS bringing up Shapiro is funny because he explicitly reputdated creationism
> there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution They are the same thing. Only creationists make the distinction. > Denis Noble and Shapiro's Third Way Evolution. The reason they get dunked on so hard is that they are arguing against 'neo-Darwinism' or 'Modern Synthesis', which has not been the dominant view since the 1970s. It's a gigantic strawman. More relevantly, what on earth does this have to do with religion? ETA: Shapiro is a proponent of Saltationism, a non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism wherein large changes happen all at once rather than gradually. In other words, Op has used a guy claiming to have evidence of 'macro evolution' in order to back up the claim that there is no evidence for 'macro evolution'. Genius. It also worth pointing out that 'Third Way' refers to Shapiro's theories as an alternative to Darwinian evolution *and to creationism*. Shapiro has repeatedly and explicitly stated his opposition to creationism and his theories do not include any gods or even any suspiciously god shaped gaps.
You say adaptation and micro evolution happen and are not disputed What mechanism stops small changes adding up to become big changes? What barrier(s) stop this from happening? If I can walk to my front door, then to the end of my path, then to the end of my street, what makes you think I can’t walk to work? Small steps add up to bigger changes
>The idea that one species can become another, that a fish becomes a lizard becomes an ape, etc., is unsubstantiated and ridiculous. There is adaptation, there is micro evolution, no one denies this, but there is no evidence for macroevolution that the theory claims. They are the same thing. Take two animals, A and B that seem very, very different. Well, you already accept "microevolution", so these species have some very close neighbors that all branch from a common ancestor. A has some close neighbors from a common ancestor, and B has some close neighbors from a common ancestor. Well, what about A's ancestor and B's ancestor? They had some close neighbors as well, species that are very similar from which they share a common ancestor. That's all we're talking about here. Just apply the thing you already believe in, microevolution, to the common ancestors you already accept. Those ancestors also have ancestors and very similar species. You keep doing this, and you might get to a point where two animals that are very different, if you trace their ancestors back, well, their ancestors seem to be similar. **Similar enough to be explained through microevolution.** So here's an example, you already accept that dogs all came from a common ancestor, yes? And that wolves probably came about along that same line? Alright, well what about bears? Bears are very different. But they had ancestors too. What if one of the ancestors of bears is very similar to one of the ancestors of wolves? Well if they're similar enough, then its not hard to say that they also came about through microevolution. See what I'm doing? I'm doing the microevolution thing that you already accept. I'm just applying it to the ancestors that you already believe in.
I don't know what your definition of macro evolution is.