Would you agree, Macro- Evolution is just theory not fact.?

Question

MicroEvolution is a fact of science it's been observed. But Macro-Evolution is just thoery that has never been observed. Whould you agree it's just a thoery.

Actually, nobody disputes gravity. It's demostratable and Macroevolution isn't

Answer 1

I'd be hard-pressed to even call it a theory. I don't think it is scientific enough to be a theory. It might be a philosophical theory, but not a scientific one.

Answer 2

Not sure MACRO evolution has not been observed in SOME species. Birds, bacterium, plants, insects have short life spans and can be studied quite well and evolutionarily noted over 100 years of time. It still to short a time period to amount to a bag of beans.

It can, however, meet the definative terms of MACRO study

We, however, must go further. It must be MICRO and MACRO studies.

We must SEE how the GENES evololve, what they do.

I give an example of eye color among racially mixed offspring.

In ALL but the Northern Europeans, BROWN is the SOLE eye color. In Northern Europeans it can be Brown, Blue, Green, Gray.

Now as these people mix and produce OFFSPRING, what will the GENETICS yeld and HOW will it work.

Will it work.

Theoretically, the BROWN should dominate and eventually the Blue, Green and Gray minority genes SHOULD VANISH

How do they vanish is what EVOLUTION is about.

THAT they vanish is waht Genetics is about.

But HOW, the PROCESS by which the Gree, Blue and Gray eye colors get IRRADICATED in favor of just BROWN, which may or may not happen, is WHAT evolution is about.

The PROCESS by which the GENES cease having these characteristics ALL TOGETHER

No more DOMINANT and RESSESIVE.

Just ONE GENE Brown eyes.

You will NOT EVEN find ONE BLACK, American Indian or Chinese who is PURE (not racially mixed) come up with BLUE eyes.

To the best of my knoweldge, it is SIMPLY not in their genes.

Nor is RED HAIR.

You WILL NOT find a NATURALLY RED HEADED Black, Indian or Chinese person.

The ONLY way that happens is with cross breeding with NORTHERN EUROPEANS.

I point this one out, because it is one to look at.

We are mixing racially and IF an opporunity to both MACRO and MICRO evolution is to happen, this is a hot bed of potential and maybe we can see it happen in 500 or 1000 years instead of 1 million.

But is has to be documented. WHERE does the BLUE EYE Gene go

What alters that DNA

Where does the GENOME change and HOW does it change.

That, will establish EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE as a contender.

And it will use the most complex creature, MAN as the guinea pig.

Evolutionists and genetics experts SHOULD be documenting as much as they can about the various RACES or SPECIES of humans, BEFORE the gene pool becomes so mixed we can't separate one from another.

If you want a FAST lane towards proviing Evolution and Genetics, this is ONE ROAD.

It's should not be passed up.

We need to blue print deep Afrikanis who have don't no mixing with outsiders.

We need to do it with Indians in America

Semites

We need to look at natural Blonde Blue Eyed northern people

Then we need to see how the process of inter-racial or inter-speices mating changes, if any at all, the genetic make up that can lead to an evolutionary thesis.

YOu can call it racist or call it a scientific opporunity.

But if you sit around and wait for Nature to "evolve" the appendix into something or irridicate it, you are going to be waitinig 500,000 to 2 million years to document it.

Answer 3

Your question shows a basic missunderstanding of what 'theory' means in science, and shows the kind of basic misconceptiosn at the basis of the creationist debate. All scientific observations, including gravity, get classified as theories. There is no such thing as a scientific fact - that's because science - unlike dogma - is always open to revision. A hypothesis is something you test against facts. Once a hypothesis stands the trial and error phase, it becomes a theory. A theory basically means that the hypothesis is now widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community, and that a scientist would need to come up with new facts that run counter to the theory in order to re-open the debate again - plus, in addition to these facts, he must also be able to propose a theory that is at least as efficient as the one he/she wishes to replace in explaining all facts the theory is meant to cover.
As things stand now, all serious scientists believe in macroevolution. It is the theory that has proven to make the most sense in explaining all of the facts accumulated by modern science. Intelligent design is not even a scientific theory at all, as it does not propose adequate replacing explanations for the theory it denies, and has not been brought up by any new facts in need of explaining, safe for scripture. It is completely outside of how science works - it can hardly even be called a hypothesis. It is more of a claim, which doesn't mean much to a biologist, a geologist, a paleontologist, a chemist, a zoologist, and countless other scientists whose disciplines rely on the theory of evolution, for which there is no serious competition at the moment.

ELDA9: ROFLMAO

Answer 4

hilarious that people don't understand what a scientific theory is. here, just to help you out:

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

macroevolution is a theory involving many facts.

if it doesn't hurt your brain to read it, here's a helpful source for information:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Answer 5

Has not been observed? I think you should look up the definition of a scientific 'theory.' It has literally thousands of pieces of evidence, all in support of macro-evolution. It has gotten to a point now where over 95% of the scientific community believe in macro evolution. The ignorance on here is astounding.

Answer 6

A theory is a compilation of proved hypotheses that has been shown to make accurate predictions over multiple trials and coincides with the vast majority of the known evidence.

Evolution meets this criterion so much that almost all biologist consider it a fact. Direct experimental observation is not a requirement when you are examining fossil and DNA evidence.

Answer 7

no longer something would be the two certainty and concept, they're 2 completely separate issues. A certainty is demonstrable datum, something have has befell and can be shown to have befell, whilst an theory is an evidence for what befell which may well be used to foretell destiny results of comparable circumstances. as an occasion, if we decrease someones head off and he dies as a effect it can be a certainty that decapitation killed that one individual. If we decrease off 1000 human beings's heads and that all of them die we would desire to postulate an theory of Decapitation to the end result that reducing someones head off will kill them. it is not a certainty that decapitation kills human beings in uncomplicated terms an theory, albeit an extremely stable and notably usual concept, in spite of the undeniable fact that it may continually additionally stay conceivable that the subsequent individual decapitated would survive, we would not understand till after the certainty, wherein case the certainty could be that the thought grew to become into nevertheless preserving genuine. because of the fact of this the Theories of Gravity and electrical energy stay theories and could possibly on no account be information. it is that failure to appreciate the meanings of the words "certainty" and "concept" that reasons plenty confusion in discussions of technology via laymen, quite while they combat to discard usual medical concepts via announcing they're "merely theories". Evolutionary biology is regular medical theory and as new information come to easy we gain extra useful and extra useful information of how the approach works, yet like all concept it is a paintings in progression and and continually would be.

Answer 8

Yes, so is the theory of gravity (we don't know where the force comes from), and quantum theory, and the theory of relativity. Do you dispute those as well?

Answer 9

I would say that you don't understand what a theory is. The laws of gravity are technically theories...

Answer 10

it has been observed, just look at whale evolution, human evolution, tetrapods, etc.

besides, to say micro=/=macro is to say:
1+1+1=/=3.