Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[SPIKE_CSA]

---

@ sinyalan

you said: You can't even suppress the evolution that is going on around you ho chia.

I guess you have a big big problem on what is the difference of MICRO EVOLUTION and MACRO EVOLUTION.

for you info sinyalan:

Microevolution is well-documented, naturally-occurring, biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-hair dogs producing a short-hair puppy would be an example of microevolution.

Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.

And dont you dare cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution.

[Sinyalan]

oi, welcome back yikes -este spikes-csa! warned man lagi ka dhong.... hehehehe... anyway, you are sure that you accepted microevolution over macroevolution. Here's a question for you pre... what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter?

[SPIKE_CSA]

@sinyalan

Very simple because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution.


In other words sinyalan, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution.

[rodsky]

Are the anti-evolution people here therefore saying, that discoveries like Austrolopithecus Robostus, Homo Erectus, and Neantherthals are all fake?

-RODION

[Sinyalan]

@sinyalan

Very simple because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution.


In other words sinyalan, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution.

so, this is the essence of what constitutes microevolution? Let me ask you again the same question... what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter? I'll modify my question, explain what logical or biological barriers would prevent microevolutionary changes from becoming macroevolutionary changes over long spans of time?

Even so spikes, you are leaning to evolutionary process. This is what creationist fall short because microevolution is regarded as evolutionary changes within a species, such that mating and producing fertile offspring. So what makes you think that creationism agreed on microevolution?

[Tattva]

@sinyalan

Very simple because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution.


In other words sinyalan, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution.

Before there was microevolution, Religion used to say that there is no such thing as evolution. They were very adamant about it, NO NO NO, evolution is impossible. It was a denial so full of assurance that no evidence will support evolution. Till, biology discovered fluctuations in DNA. Now, in their effort to cover their shame, they spread their blanket called microevolution.

Now here they are again so adamant in their denial that microevolution cant produce macroevolution,haha, will this be another Denial-turned-into-shame thingy? hope not.

[Hellblazer]

forward the evolution!

[Sinyalan]

Are the anti-evolution people here therefore saying, that discoveries like Austrolopithecus Robostus, Homo Erectus, and Neantherthals are all fake?

-RODION

I don't think they understand the process pre. Much to prove them that they are correct, creationists act as if there was some magic line that exists.

[rodsky]

I don't think they understand the process pre. Much to prove them that they are correct, creationists act as if there was some magic line that exists.

I still want to know if they think that all the major discoveries in paleontology and human archeology/anthropology are all fakes.

-RODION

[Sinyalan]

Before there was microevolution, Religion used to say that there is no such thing as evolution. They were very adamant about it, NO NO NO, evolution is impossible. It was a denial so full of assurance that no evidence will support evolution. Till, biology discovered fluctuations in DNA. Now, in their effort to cover their shame, they spread their blanket called microevolution.

Now here they are again so adamant in their denial that microevolution cant produce macroevolution,haha, will this be another Denial-turned-into-shame thingy? hope not.

Pre, The reason scientists don't accept creationist dogma, is because creationism is not science and the evidence does not support the creationist claims. As hostile as it can be.... that there's no human intelligence allowed because "god did it".