Observable evidence for macro-evolution?
So, here's the case. I watched a 40 minute movie attempting to prove that there is no observable evidence for change of kinds in macro-evolution. I'm sure we're all familiar with Ray Comfort. He was basically interviewing PhD biologists and some biology majors, all of which failed to answer as to how we can observe a change of kinds. The movie? It's called Evolution Vs. God. He was attempting to prove that scientists too, must take things on faith. He tried to prove his case via debunking evolution, and that's a fallacy. Here's what I said in defence of Atheism:
I find that many from both sides establish a connection between the probability of God's existence and Evolution. Atheism and Evolution are not intertwined. There had been Atheists long before evolution was regarded as a scientific fact. Do not confuse Evolution as a biologic fact only acknowledged by Atheists. Greek philosophers had established that the probability of a lawful deity was extremely low, to the extent that it would be unimaginably silly to consider it – about two thousand years before the birth of Darwin. I would not seek to argue that the position of an Atheist is wrong merely because I FIND that Evolution has no sufficient evidence on it's side. I said “lawful” deity because no deity with the well being of it's creations in mind would author this cruel cosmos.
I also find that what you do during the end of the video is quite disturbing; it's unethical and dishonest. Nobody needs to be told the ten commandments to establish that stealing and murdering is wrong but in fact your own very God has trespassed his own commandments several times. Even if he hadn't I wouldn't seek to argue that we need God in order to act ethically, and yes, ethically, not morally. Morals derive from ethics and ethics derive from the well being of a society. I take serious offense in regard to your dishonest, absurd idea, that Atheism eventually leads you to ruin – suicide. The realization that we live in a cruel world comes without Evolution – but that wasn't even relevant in regard to Ernest Hemingway's suicide. It's incredibly dishonest to assert that because an Atheist committed suicide therefore Atheism leads you to suicide. That's an obvious fallacy and could be just as well used against Christianity: “Mark was a Christian. Mark Committed suicide so therefore Christianity leads you to suicide.” – see the fallacy in regard to that idea? It's hypocritical that you would seek to call Atheists dishonest. And you call them hypocrites as well, how convenient.
I would want to clarify that Atheism is the realization that the existence of God is highly implausible, due to the lack of evidence and therefore rejected. You could also choose to be regard yourself as an agnostic Atheist which would help avoid that “problem” regarding the rejection of the existence of God altogether. I personally disagree with the use of the term – how silly would it be to assert that I'm a nonbeliever in unicorns?
Also, being lustful in your heart is absurd and incoherent. We picture ourselves doing lustful acts that fulfill our deepest desires, how is this negatively affecting the world in which we live in? How and why would it ever be considered immoral? It's absurd to assert anything of that sort, and you've already done it several times. How is pornography negatively affecting the world in which we live in? It's a perfectly fine industry that is being taxed and does not trespass the laws of our community – our ethics. I would have to hear a sound argument against pornography to consider it as unethical and bad for our community, and the fact that the bible implies it's immoral is silly. The bible and God endorse slavery, genocide and sexual assault of millions – you would have to justify all of the atrocities committed by God and his holy army of Jews before you regard the bible as a lawful book from which to derive morals that have the well being of human kind in mind.
I would come back and address the ending of the movie. You asserted that Atheists are fundamentally less moral than Christians. I would first bring up a list of atrocities that wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for Christianity, and are justified by the use of Christian dogma entirely: the Spanish inquisition; the Crusades; the HIV outbreak in Africa due to the pope regarding the use of Condoms as a sin; the genocide of millions of native Americans by the Spanish conquistadores who – under the “holy” cross – brought missionaries and thereafter threatened people by the sword to convert to Christianity; the persecution of non Christians including Jews, Atheists and Pagan Polytheists (mostly Greeks, Persians and North Europeans who either resisted or wouldn't have been under the influence of the Romans) after Christianity was made the legitimate faith of the Roman empire. In Europe, 15 centuries later, the massacre of millions of Jews by Adolf Hitler, who was indisputab
-ly a Roman-Catholic and believed his faith inspired him to act in “accordance with the will of God: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler. As I said before the atrocities mentioned above and countless others could be justified by the bible, a book from which you dare derive your morals from, and assert that anybody who doesn't is a fool and unethical, as shown in the video. The movie would have been entertaining, if it had been a comedy.
- gardengallivantLv 76 years agoBest Answer
The problem with considering the creationists construct of macroevolution worthy of refutation raises it to a degree of worth as a disparate concept it does not merit. The several mechanisms of evolution are sufficient to produce the resulting changes in allelic frequencies in a population's gene pools. Then given time and the continuous challenge and change of biotic community interactions coupled with abiotic changes we can expect both anagenic lineages and cladogenic splits in species into two or more groups that subsequently diverge in their traits. This gives us the taxonomic ranks based on a history of retained basic characteristics; a shrubby oddly branched tree of life.
What causes the radical shift of small insectivorous protomammals into what appears to be radically different kinds to an untrained biologist is understandable to a modern biologist able to compare anatomy, physiology, embryology, behavior, bio-geography and genetic homologies. It is possibly to trace the basic common characters and their modifications to alter forms. Combine this with explicit fossil stratigraphy and the evidence of transitional forms is congruent and strong that these species radically radiated into new niches and changed into the many branches of mammals.
While large mammalian fossils may have left erratic snapshot evidence of transitional changes the invertebrate micro & mesofossils provide a much more complete record of progressive transitional changes in lineages. Read the book 'Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters' by Donald Prothero.
This is one of the best books on the subject of evolutionary paleontology and where it provides evidence.
Part I examines evolution as a foundation to biology.
Part II is a survey of the major features of the fossil record from the origins of life to the appearance of humans. This section shows how the fossils provide supportive evidence convergent with all other aspects of evolutionary biology.
Combine this with "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo" by Sean Carroll This books relates how the tools of molecular biology and genome sequencing have opening up the interrelations of embryology and evolutionary change. This book explains how the patterns of development are reused and expanded to go from the ur-animal to worms, arthropods and vertebrates by regulation shifts & duplications in master regulation cascades to manipulate the basic body to form all the different species no matter how different they appear on the surface to the novice.
- Anonymous4 years ago
This Site Might Help You.
Observable evidence for macro-evolution?
So, here's the case. I watched a 40 minute movie attempting to prove that there is no observable evidence for change of kinds in macro-evolution. I'm sure we're all familiar with Ray Comfort. He was basically interviewing PhD biologists and some biology majors, all of which failed to...Source(s): observable evidence macro evolution: https://tr.im/PXA9d
- Roberta BLv 65 years ago
There isn't any. This is why much of evolutionary research concentrates on the validity of micro-evolution But its validity - and micro-evolution does have both validity and observable evidence - does not transfer to establish macro-evolution.
Scientists with PhDs in Biology and other sciences (not all of them), who know far more about this than I do, have stated exactly what I have stated. I don't claim to be an originator of this idea, but I do claim to know how to read.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- novangelisLv 76 years ago
The biologists had no problems answering the bananaman. Comfort simply made sure that cogent answers wound up on the (virtual) cutting room floor. Note the format: an off-camera interviewer and frequent cuts which allows the questions to be redubbed to fit the shortened answers to the premise. The movie establishes which side is moral.Source(s): http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/24/... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
- Bob D1Lv 76 years ago
("Observable evidence for macro-evolution?")
No such thing as there is only evolution.
See: Ancient creature mixed human, apelike traits
See: Chimp Genetic History Stranger Than Humans'
See: Oldest Fossils Reveal When Apes & Monkeys First Divered
Best regardsSource(s): self
- EricaLv 66 years ago
Don't listen to anything Ray Comfort says, first of all. All he does is exploit people. Especially don't believe anything he says when he talks about science. He knows nothing of science.
Macroevolution is a proven scientific fact. It's as well documented to science as Napoleon is to history. There is no controversy.Source(s): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
- JamesLv 46 years ago
Whether or not Atheists are moral is beside the point. Their very paradigm means that there is no real basis for meaning, morality, social justice, ECT... These are all optional beliefs. If one doesn't get caught, it really makes no difference what one does.
- Anonymous6 years ago
you want real-world evidence of evolution? ok, how about this...
why do we have yearly flu shots?
ba-ZING! science: 1 religion: 0