What're the best arguments against macro-evolution?

[Anonymous No.10777535]

This is important.

[Anonymous No.10777541]

Open a book instead of asking to be spoonfed

[Anonymous No.10777543]

Irreducible complexity for some extremely convoluted systems is probably the best but it's still not very good. Unfortunately you probably won't be able to find very good evidence against something that's probably true.

[Anonymous No.10777551]

The Truth About Evolution
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1602.0132

The rate of mutation needed to obtain humans from bacteria in the 4B years since the surface of the Earth stopped being lava is much too high. Someone suggested an error in my model such that the mutations occur in the proteins that do the DNA coding rather than in the DNA itself. That seems like a perfectly valid thing which I did not consider with regards to my time table argument. However, I think even with mutations in the coding protein molecules rather than the much larger DNA molecules, my argument about integer leaps in the number of of chromosomes still suggests that evolution probably didn't happen how it is said to have.

[Anonymous No.10777552]

>>10777535
Macroevolution and microevolution is a meaningless distinction only creationists care about anymore. We have observed speciation on the level of species. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.10777559]

>>10777551
based tooker, is there any field he isn't attempting to get published in?

[Anonymous No.10777567]

>>10777559
Is he some renowned crank?

[Anonymous No.10777569]

>>10777552
>We have observed speciation on the level of species.
What was the situation? Which organism evolved & into what? How was it different after it macroevolved?

[Anonymous No.10777572]

>>10777559
>is there any field he isn't attempting to get published in?
Satanism. I'm not interested and it seems gay to me.

[Anonymous No.10777577]

>>10777552
literally this. /thread

[Anonymous No.10777582]

>>10777569
https://www.nature.com/subjects/speciation

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

It’s apparent you didn’t engage with evolutionary biology at college or university if you’re not already aware of this, so why even attempt to engage with it? Dunning-Kruger?

[Anonymous No.10777597]

>>10777582
>Dunning-Kruger
found the BS peddler
evolution is monsanto agitprop

[Anonymous No.10777608]

>>10777597
>found the BS peddler

Not a refutation of Darwinian evolution.

>evolution is monsanto agitprop

What?

[Anonymous No.10777646]

>>10777552
this

[Anonymous No.10777659]

>>10777582
>Dunning-Kruger.
>Evolution must be true 'cause Dawkins said so

[Anonymous No.10777663]

>1+1=2
ok
>1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9
wtf this is bullshit

[Anonymous No.10777664]

>>10777535
Bombardier Beetle

[Anonymous No.10777671]

>>10777663
>macro-evolution is just micro-evolution but over longer periods of time
Even evolutionary biologists reject this

[Anonymous No.10777675]

>>10777671
>Even evolutionary biologists reject this
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10777680]

>>10777659
>muh creationism REEEEEE

[Anonymous No.10777683]

>>10777659
>Evolution must be true 'cause Dawkins said so

Never said that. I wonder why you’re resorting to creating weird and unrealistic caracitures of people you know nothing about on an anonymous image board instead of citing peer-reviewed literature proving that evolution isn’t real. This is a quandary I may never solve...

[Anonymous No.10777686]

>>10777671
Citation needed. What magical new mechanism is required for speciation that doesn’t take place in microevolution?

[Anonymous No.10777690]

>>10777535
There aren't.

[Anonymous No.10778054]

bump

[Anonymous No.10778059]

>>10777535
OP
>>10777552
Sadly they don't believe in proper biological taxonomy either, they believe in "kinds" They believe in the dog kind and cat kind and fish kind and bacteria kind all all this shit.
So I guarantee they'll consider speciation to be a kind turning into the same kind.

[Anonymous No.10778081]

>>10777535
When you use the term "macro-evolution" you've already lost.

[Anonymous No.10778171]

>>10777535

Are you going for the Jack Chick angle?

[Anonymous No.10778185]

>>10777663
kek

[Anonymous No.10778349]

>>10777535
your parents

[Anonymous No.10778813]

>>10777690

[Anonymous No.10778849]

>>10777582

Would you apply the same standards of speciation to any other one, or potentially two, taxa?

[Anonymous No.10778869]

>>10777535
Rejecting the field of biology as fact.

[Anonymous No.10779402]

>>10778849
I’m not sure what you’re saying.

>>10778813
You can believe in God and evolution at the same time, moron.

[Anonymous No.10779433]

>>10779402
>You can believe in God and evolution at the same time, moron.
Not the christian god.

[Anonymous No.10779443]

>>10779402
>God and evolution at the same time
theism: nope
deism: ok

[Anonymous No.10779463]

>>10777535
There aren't. Furthermore, the micro-macro distinction is artificial and arbitrary, and it was created by creationists as an excuse to undermine some examples of evolution.

Macro evolution is just micro evolution over longer periods of time, resulting in larger degrees of change.
There is no intrinsic difference between different "kinds" of animal. Animals aren't born with "sheep" or "cat" tags on their necks.

There is a tremendous amount of overwhelming evidence for common descent from numerous fields of study.

[Anonymous No.10779471]

>>10779433
Sure you can. Many Christians do.

[Anonymous No.10779480]

>>10779471
>Sure you can. Many Christians do.
Many people that say they are christian and also believe in evolution but if they believe in evolution which goes against the bible then they are by definition not actually Christians.

[Anonymous No.10779486]

>>10779480
Sure they are. They’re just a different kind of Christian. I’m sorry that you want Christianity to keep pretending it’s the classical era but they can and will adapt their beliefs to fit the data.

[Anonymous No.10779496]

>>10779486
>They’re just a different kind of Christian.
AKA not a christian.

[Anonymous No.10779503]

>>10779496
Sure they are. They think Jesus was magically born and then died for their sins and flew into the sky, Christian. They can pretty much ignore the entire Bible as long as they believe that

[Anonymous No.10779510]

>>10779503
>They can pretty much ignore the entire Bible as long as they believe that
They are definitely not christians then.

[Anonymous No.10779523]

>>10779480
You are a complete idiot. Many Christian denominations take the genesis account of creation as allegorical, and accept the truth of evolution. They just think that the evolution of man was guided by gods plan. Christianity and evolution are definitely compatible

[Anonymous No.10779526]

>>10777535
Who cares about some overly convoluted explanation as to why dogs and cats look different? Who cares if some nut case thinks his imaginary friend poofed it into existence? Who cares if an even nuttier case says it was actually the devil that did it? All I give a damn about is that a cat is a cat and not a damn chicken because I like to eat chicken and I'm allergic to cats.
People argue in circles around each other bickering and wasting time rationalizing and proving stuff you can never experience, and yet things you can experience are laughed at and then reasoned away as shit that didn't actually happen because fallacious assumption x allows all of logic y to prove your stupid.

[Anonymous No.10779532]

>>10779523
>You can be christian and not believe in any of that dumb christian stuff.
OK...

[Anonymous No.10779595]

>>10779510
Yeah they are, because they think Jesus rose from the dead to save their sins. You don’t get to define Christianity for other people.

[Anonymous No.10779620]

>>10779523
serious question, is there anything in the bible that can't be dismissed as allegorical?

[Anonymous No.10779626]

>>10779620
You can even be a Christian atheist or universalist.

[Anonymous No.10779642]

>>10779595
>You don’t get to define Christianity for other people.
Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Its adherents, known as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and savior of all people, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament and chronicled in the New Testament. It is the world's largest religion with over 2.4 billion followers.

[Anonymous No.10779661]

>>10779642
Yeah, that’s a great definition! Oddly enough, it does not stipulate that Christians think Earth is six thousand years old and must deny evolution.

[Anonymous No.10779668]

>>10779661
Read the old and new testaments.

[Anonymous No.10779685]

>>10779668
Gee, where in that definition does it say that you have to interpret both literally? I think you left that out!

[Anonymous No.10779733]

>>10779685
>Seething

[Anonymous No.10779748]

>>10779733
What?

[Anonymous No.10779767]

One thing that people who argue against evolution usually do is to misrepresent Darwin's arguments as being 'shit just happened randomly and thats how u get hooman from a fish lol'.

If you actually read OOS you would see that Darwin had a deep reverence for the mysteriousness of complexity itself, since you need a base substrate for evolution to work on.

There is plenty of room for a Christian God in a theory of Complexity (or at the very least a pantheistic account like in Whitehead), but everyone is too busy arguing about shit from 100 years ago to realize it.

[Anonymous No.10779846]

>>10779685
>Gee, where in that definition does it say that you have to interpret both literally?
OK, I believe a person now known as Jesus Christ existed but no miracles happened and there is no god. Am I a christian?

[Anonymous No.10779876]

The whole point of Adam and Eve is basically "God made everything good, but bad things exists completely and entirely because man made a mistake and therefore man is a disgusting evil creature for not measuring up to the intended perfection". This has been a foundational part of the religion since even before Paul expounded on it, and additionally Jesus and Paul both treated Genesis as literal events.

Take that away and you get the deistic belief that God created everything imperfect on purpose, basically mitigating the culpability of man for being flawed. This would be serious theological blow to standard religious doctrine, and one of the large reason why they just refuse to give up on this old legend that has absolutely no physical evidence supporting it, coming up with all sorts of cop-outs like "it's true spiritually" so that they can have their doctrine while accepting evolution to not look retarded, or just outright rejecting any evidence that the earth is over 6000 years old.

Hope this clears up the matter a bit, now stop arguing about religion.

[Anonymous No.10779985]

>>10779846
Do you subscribe to the ideas of Jesus Christ in particular? If so, yes!

[Anonymous No.10779992]

>>10779985
>Do you subscribe to the ideas of Jesus Christ in particular?
You mean the ones written in the new testament? and also about how the old testament is god's word?
No.

[Anonymous No.10781140]

>>10777608
Don't engage the schizos.

[Anonymous No.10781145]

>>10777671
Folks, we've just witnessed one of the fundamental traits of the creationist: they will literally just make things up on the spot to support their bullshit. When confronted, they will then resort to logical fallacies or completely ignore the confrontation to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10781149]

>>10777559
Who is this Tooker guy I keep seeing, I've been away for the summer

[Anonymous No.10781152]

>>10779748
He's projecting his own frustration due to his argument being garbage onto you.

[Anonymous No.10781155]

>>10779992
Jesus made a new pact with God on behalf of all humans that believe in his saving grace. You don't know a lot about Christianity, do you?

[Anonymous No.10781173]

>>10777535
Clamping of the umbilical cord before the completion of placental transfusion.

[Anonymous No.10781179]

>>10779532
>>10779480

Its completely compatible. You have to be an idiot to believe in the Genesis creation account as "literally" true, because it relies on the concept of days before the sun & earth were created. Who are you to say how long one of the days in Genesis 1 is? You have to accept some ambiguity or metaphor. Personally I see it as Adam & Eve are the first humans with souls and free will, once hominids had evolved to some point God had in mind. Once we ate the fruit of knowledge, our communion with God ceased and here we are, after the flood and Babel. Interestingly ,Christ specifically mentions the flood as a literal occurrence. Funny you insist on taking the Bible as literal truth when your bible is probably missing the duterocanonical books and you (likely) reject the Church that compiled the Bible in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10781190]

>>10781149
You've been away for years' worth of summers if you don't know who Tooker is. Stop pretending.

[Anonymous No.10781192]

>>10777535
Time isn't as long as science says it is.

If the universe is younger than we think, the Earth as well, then maybe enough time hasn't passed for these things to evolve naturally. Otherwise, just add enough time and the numbers work out.

[Anonymous No.10781239]

>>10781192
>Time isn't as long as science says it is.

[Anonymous No.10781292]

>>10779767
>'shit just happened randomly and thats how u get hooman from a fish lol'.

See, it's almost designing a jet engine by now.

[Anonymous No.10781311]

>>10777683
Is that you, platinum maltaria?

[Anonymous No.10781327]

>>10777535
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

[Anonymous No.10781331]

>>10781239
There's literally no other argument. Either there was enough time for it to happen or there wasn't. "Hurr but it can't happen in a million years" is not an argument if it took billions. "B-but n-not even b-billions" then trillions. It doesn't matter how long it actually takes. The only argument against it is that it happened too quickly.

[Anonymous No.10781344]

>>10777582
>he didnt take the panentheist deism pill
Sad!