Intelligent Design proponents - how can you believe micro-evolution but not macro-evolution?

Question

If you believe in micro-evlution, isn't it just a matter of time until a species splits in two because the sexual equipment of two or more popuations evolves to the point where reproduction between teh populations is impossible.

Doesn't the existence of micro-evolution make macro-evolution a mathematical certainty?

Answer 1

This is where you are wrong:
Invisible man in the sky is constantly watching and making sure that small changes do not accumulate to create a new specie.

Answer 2

No. "Micro-evolution" isn't evolution at all. It is just variation within a kind (not "species"). This is the only part of evolution theory that is scientific. It is provable that there are 250 varieties of dogs. No one disputes that. But "macro-evolution", which is the belief that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor, is a religious belief that is unproven and unprovable, and requires a great deal of faith to believe. The only thing that science has been able to prove scientifically is that animals only bring forth after their kind, which actually supports Biblical creationism. All Darwin was able to prove throughout his life is that finches produce finches and pigeons produce pigeons. No new kind of animal is ever produced, no matter how much time is allotted. Farmers constantly try to produce new and better varieties of corn or tomato, but they ALWAYS get corn or tomato, 100% guaranteed. Scientists are constantly breeding new varieties of bacteria or fruit flies, but they ALWAYS get bacteria or fruit flies! There is a "black box" outside of which any given kind of animal cannot reproduce. "Variation within a species" is not evolution. When new varieties of these kinds are produced, information is LOST - not gained! In order for some type of terrestrial animal to grow wings, new information must be added. Mutations NEVER create new information - existing information is either lost or destroyed. You can get a mutant cow with 5 legs, but the mutation is only a repetition of currently existing information. The cow will never grow scales or wings.
A person who believes that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor has the burden of proof to show evidence that such a creature existed. The fossil record has shown no such animal. In fact, the fossil record only shows fossils of modern animals, plus some extinct ones that belong to a "kind" (there are approximately 28 different "kinds" of dinosaurs). There are no intermediates between these "kinds". If one cannot prove one's claims, then the claims become religious in nature - especially if one clings to it as if it were a fact, despite evidence to the contrary.

Answer 3

one ingredient that this theory does no longer conceal is; who then designed the fashion designer? If the reason given for the life of a fashion designer is the complexity of nature, and the fashion designer could be more effective complicated than what he designed accurate? So who designed him? extremely he couldn't have basically happened without some thing putting theory into it, accurate? Then who designed the fashion designer's fashion designer? this can go on infinitely, accurate? Scientists also each so often characteristic to a fashion designer some thing that got here about by way of organic random chaos. it really is called a kind I mistakes. What you're suggesting is that we are making a kind II mistakes, calling some thing random even as it honestly has a fashion designer. or per chance you're even suggesting that those 2 kinds of mistakes do no longer exist because each little thing has a fashion designer? See what occurs? If each little thing has a fashion designer then no longer some thing is random, meaning all of our equations for risk and information are invalid. meaning ALL medical understanding and experiments are ineffective, because no longer some thing might want to be determined about some thing. And all of us comprehend this isn't real. those are 2 the reason why I, as a scientist, won't be able to "believe" in a fashion designer. this theory basically won't be able to make logical experience.

Answer 4

simple micro is natural selection and macro is evolution. totally different things. natural selection can be scientifically proven and is the passing on of the best-fitting genes in the environment to offspring. evolution is like an amphibian turning into a bird. there is a huge difference. natural selection occurs within species but evolution is said to occur between groups and even kingdoms - it is basically impossible and there is no real proof.

Answer 5

There is pleanty of evidence to show that creatures change within their kind and no one refutes that. There is no evidence to show one kind changes to another. Micro-evolution shows without a doubt that birds can change into another species of bird, all the while, they remain birds. Macro-evolution teaches that birds evolved from lizards, which there is not a single shred of evidence for. The only mathematical certainty is that more and more species of birds will evolve, but will never become a whole different creature.

Answer 6

More BS from Christians about Macro-evolution being different from micro-evolution. The only reason one of your "kinds" (which you never define by the way) has not evolved into another "kind" is because you haven't waited long enough.

By the way, for the LOVE! Please define "kind" when you say things like this.

Answer 7

No it doesn't. Why? Because Micro evolution has been witnessed, and Macro evolution has not. There is precious little evidence for your excuse to not acknowledge God. Believe it if you want though.

Answer 8

The experiments with the fruit fly answers this questions

After multi generations, following different variations,

They had fruit flies that had long wings, short wings, no wings,

but they remained fruit flies.

Dogs are another example. We have small dogs, large dogs, even hairless dogs,

But they remain dogs.

variety is a blessing from God.

Answer 9

They have to hang their hat on something so they make stuff up about 'macro-evolution' and 'information'. Terms that no real biologist would ever use.

Answer 10

Better watch-when I pointed that out to them in a question recently it was swiftly removed from the board. They don't like hard facts-they prefer to hide their heads in the sand when confronted with unpalatable truths.