So far, I have not watched any of the videos over 15 minutes. I'm hoping to find some evidence supporting macro evolution in those. The first six videos provided plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but little for macro evolution. The article also provides no evidence for macro evolution. I hope to see some evidence for macro evolution in the longer videos. Assuming we evolved from apes, there should be plenty of fossils supporting this. It also would make sense if there are some beings today that are still in the process of evolving from apes to humans. This is the kind of thing I have yet to see evidence for, and what I mean by macro evolution.

The truth is, the Bible supports micro evolution. The size of the ark that was built by Noah in the Bible simply does not have enough space to fit all species of animals. So from simply reading the Bible, we know that organisms change over time.

Similarities in fossils between different types of organisms may be evidence for evolution, but it can also be used as evidence for Intelligent Design. If two organisms are made by the same designer, it makes sense that there would be similarities in the way these organisms were made.

Please, don't just throw something like that in my face. Explain to me exactly how tectonic activity and ice age explains that there is a lot of species (kangaroo is one example) that can only be found in a specific area. According to the bible, all animals landed with noah's ark on a mountain in the middle east. Did the kangaroo made a big jump from the middle east to australia?

The flood in the Bible is mentioned as covering the whole earth. But we must remember, it was written by a man (Moses). There is the possibility that he never realized how big the earth actually was. He may have not known Australia existed. Perhaps, by his "covering the whole earth", he meant covered the whole known world (where people lived). Perhaps the flood did not cover the whole earth, but simply the known world. This is merely speculation, but it is a possibility. Perhaps there were no kangaroos in the ark, because there were none in that area of the world.

Job 40:15-24 (in the Bible) mentions an animal that sounds an awful lot like a dinosaur. Yet according to the theory of evolution, dinosaurs were gone many millions of years before humans were around. The knowledge they had of science back then is minuscule to the scientific knowledge we have now. So how did Job know a creature like that had existed, unless that creature was living at that time?

even if you don't agree with the author's point of view

Learning more is seldom a bad thing. Just because you think something is true, does not make it so. Therefore, it is good to get as much evidence as you can on a subject, and reevaluating your opinion as you learn more on the subject. If you are right, you still can learn what the opposing side is saying, and you can learn to better defend your opinion.

Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro

------------------Macro------------------------------

Another thing I would like to emphasize, there does not have to be a counter between religion and evolution, they can coexist. When you start denying science, technological growth slows down tremendously. Example: The Dark Ages.

he first six videos provided plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but little for macro evolution.

I believe the first 6 links deals with explaining the mechanisms related to the theory of evolution, not about the actual evidences.

Assuming we evolved from apes, there should be plenty of fossils supporting this

Actually we didn't evolved from apes, we are an ape, and we have a common ancestor with all the other apes. (wich is just a way of saying that apes are our closest cousins among all life forms, since if we go back far enough, we share a common ancester with every form of life)

I assume by micro evolution, you mean evolution within the same specie, and by macro evolution, you mean evolution from one specie evolving into another specie.
There is several independant lines of evidences for macroevolution

DNA
DNA analysis provides evidence for macroevolution. 96% of our DNA is the same that of other apes. And we share about 50% of DNA with some plants (if i'm not mistaken). Every living things share DNA, and the more DNA they share, the closest they are on the evolutionary tree. So there is evidence of a common descent for all forms of life in the DNA.

FOSSIL
Since Darwin, we have found a great deal "transitional fossils". A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.(wikipedia)
Thus the fossil records provides evidences for macro evolution.

ANATOMY
If you look at the anatomy of the whale for example you can see how the ancestor of the whale was actually a 4 legged land mammal. I believe the 11min video on the evidence for evolution focuses on this example. Did you not find it convincing? (it's the 7th link so i don't know if you have seen it - edit:not the 7th anymore)

These are just 3 independant lines of evidences supporting macroevolution, there is many more.
In fact, the theory of evolution is considered to be the unifying theory of Biology; as every fields in biology is consistent with evolution.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing (same mechanisms). Macroevolution is just the sum of all microevolutions. Where do you draw the line exactly between macro and micro evolution?

Edited 4/21/2015 10:01:55

^ Very excellent post.

So far, I have not watched any of the videos over 15 minutes. I'm hoping to find some evidence supporting macro evolution in those. The first six videos provided plenty of evidence for micro evolution, but little for macro evolution. The article also provides no evidence for macro evolution. I hope to see some evidence for macro evolution in the longer videos.

Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro - Micro

------------------Macro------------------------------

Incorrect.

Example of microevolution:

A certain species of mice have 2 different types of colors: brown and white. They white ones die in areas with more brown rocks, and brown ones die in areas with white rocks. This is due that predators are more likely to catch them, and there color genes will not be passed on. However, this will never result in macroevolution; at least, theres no evidence it will.

Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing (same mechanisms). Macroevolution is just the sum of all microevolutions. Where do you draw the line exactly between macro and micro evolution?

*Facepalm*

Microevolution: one specific type of wolf changes into another. same species, different looks, size, etc.

Macroevolution: Lizard to bird.

First is common, and even among creationists, widey accepted (among competent creationist, mind you)

Second has no extensive evidence. (I can't say there isn't any; I haven't researched it enough}.

Edited 4/21/2015 02:13:52

Microevolution: one specific type of wolf changes into another. same species, different looks, size, etc.

Macroevolution: Lizard to bird.

how about wolf to dog? is that micro or macro?

At what point is there enough changes separating two species that it becomes macroevolution?

Generaly, we define 2 differents species when interbreeding is no longer possible.
You seem to imply that no matter how many little changes (in wich you believe), there will never be enough changes as to differentiate 2 initial group of the same specie into 2 different species. In that case, the evolution would have to stop at some point, in order to "not cross the line". Is that what you think?

Edited 4/21/2015 02:42:10

no.

heres where it ends: animals with completely different charactersistics. I.E>, horses zerbras donkeys in one group, wolves and dogs in another, felines in another, etc., etc.

as there is NO REAL EVIDENCE OF MACRO EVOLUTION OCCURING.

also, u dont seem to understand that micro evolution is changes from the enviroment

Khan Academy:

Introduction to Evolution and Natural Selection (17 min - there was a mistake at the beginning of the video, wich he rectified in the second video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcjgWov7mTM&index=1&list=PL7A9646BC5110CF64

ape clarification (1 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGkYA_diDA&index=2&list=PL7A9646BC5110CF64

heres where it ends: animals with completely different charactersistics. I.E>, horses zerbras donkeys in one group, wolves and dogs in another, felines in another, etc., etc.

What are the characteristics? 2 eyes? 4 legs?
All these denomination of "felines", "Equidae", "insects", etc are just arbitrary groups made to represent a group of "close evolutionnary relative". So any characteristic you chose to separate your groups are just arbitrary

as there is NO REAL EVIDENCE OF MACRO EVOLUTION OCCURING.

Keeping saying it doesn't make it true.

also, u dont seem to understand that micro evolution is changes from the enviroment

you are right, by micro evolution, i didn't understand "changes from the environment", since this is not the usual definition for microevolution....maybe you should research it a bit more?

Edited 4/21/2015 02:56:21

*facepalm*

heres the line:

in all the cases of microevolution, the characteristics were already in the gene pool. They just became more common as animals without the correct characteristics died.

macroevolution = new characteristic.

*facepalm*

heres the line:

in all the cases of microevolution, the characteristics were already in the gene pool. They just became more common as animals without the correct characteristics died.

macroevolution = new characteristic.

Oh ok, so you believe in Natural Selection, but you don't believe random mutations and genetic drift, is that it? (both can be observed in a lab fyi)

edit: you should stop facepalming, it might further damage your brain

Edited 4/21/2015 03:10:31

Sorry I haven't responded yet tonight; I've been studying for a math competition tommorrow. I am on my phone; I'll give you a better response tommorrow.

I think DNA is an argument that leans toward a god rather than atheism. That is mainly because of the complexity of the DNA. I will try to find a video tommorrow that demonstrates the math behind this.

The fossil records and anatomy may have good evidence. I have not yet seen the 7th link, so maybe I will find it in there (and possibly the other videos I have yet to see).

I do not believe I am qualified to draw the line between micro and macro evolution and would likely embarrass myself if I did try. That said, I do believe there needs to be a concrete line drawn; I just have not yet discovered what exactly it is. Perhaps kinds is what I mean? I don't simply think it is between species; there is evidence that evolution goes farther than that that I have seen. Wolves/dogs, etc. all came from the same ancestor. Horses/zebras came from the same ancestor, etc. I want to see evidence that a cat can become a dog, or something like that. Or that both evolved from the same thing. Perhaps this is found in the videos that I have not looked at yet.

So what I'm not understanding is why there are no beings that are somewhat between apes and humans. If humans are really apes, why are we so much more intelligent than other apes? I know of the social darwism idea, which would answer this question. I obviously don't believe in social Darwinism but I'm wondering how evolution connects humans and apes with creatures that are still around today. I don't know if you understand what I'm asking, but I just wanted to write down my thoughts.

Also, I mentioned that in job, he writes about an animal that sounds a lot like a dinosaur. How is this possible unless creatures like dinosaurs were still around?

I think DNA is an argument that leans toward a god rather than atheism

evolution is not about religion or atheism, you are free to believe that there is a deity behind the design of evolution. (in fact, i'll link below a very good video on the matter, maybe you can tell me your thoughts on it)

Perhaps kinds is what I mean?

I know exactly what you mean, this is the same argument that Ken Ham has for Noah ark. The problem is that "kind" is not a scientific term, it means whatever you want it to mean. and like i said on previous post, any kind of denomination for a group of animal has to be arbitrary, isn't it?
edit:For example, DNA analysis shows that the hippo is the closest living relative to the whale. Does that mean that Hippos and Whales are of the same "kind"? Can you put up with the fact that they share a common ancestor?

So what I'm not understanding is why there are no beings that are somewhat between apes and humans. If humans are really apes, why are we so much more intelligent than other apes?

ok so here is what i understood from the various videos i've seen.

In the cosmos serie (an incredible serie of 13 episodes), if i recall correctly, some millions years ago, there was a big climate change in africa. I think what is believed to be the cause of this climate change was the unification of south and north america, thus "closing" the atlantic ocean, and creating a big change in the climate (I can't explain why tho)

So what used to be a land filled with tree, became sort of a desert, and in order to survive, the original primates had to climb down their trees to go find food. Therefore the ability to walk long distances became an selective trait.

So these original primate evolved and started gradually to walk on two feet. Our hands became free, and started to evolve allowing us to become efficient with our hands. We eventually changed our diet as we started hunting, and cooking stuff. Wich allowed us to eat more nutrients, wich in term made our brain larger and larger.

Now you can imagine that another group of the same original primates migrated to another environement less desertic, and that group evolved into gorillas and champanze for exemple.

edit: another hypothesis for our brain becoming bigger than the brain of other apes is because of a genetic defect that humans have (probably from a random mutation). One of our gene is missing 2 DNA letters. The gene responsible for the jaw muscle. The other apes don't have these missing letters on the same gene, wich give them a more powerful jaw. And to power this powerful jaw, a big powerful muscle is needed. This jaw muscle doesn't allow the brain to grow as much as with human, that have more space for their brain to grow. (you'll find a lot of DNA evidence for evolution in the "what Darwin never knew documentary)

this is just the idea that i have on how it happened. It might be wrong on some level, but i'm sure you will find better quality information in the videos.

I obviously don't believe in social Darwinism but I'm wondering how evolution connects humans and apes with creatures that are still around today

Social Darwinism is just the ideology of "survival of the fittest" applied to human society. It has nothing to do with science, it is a social model that was used to justify things like capitalism. The theory of evolution explains how we got here, it doesn't dictates how we should behave as a society.

Also, I mentioned that in job, he writes about an animal that sounds a lot like a dinosaur. How is this possible unless creatures like dinosaurs were still around?

I had this discussion on another thread. I think you are refering to leviathan and Behemoth or something. If you see the description of these mythical monsters, you will see that for example leviathan has multiple heads and is breathing fire. Behemoth has also some other supernatural caracteristics. So saying that these were dynosaurs is a big claim imo. (from what i understand, leviathan was inspired by a crocodile (lizard skin and yellow eyes, and Behemoth was inspired by a Hippo). Plus in the Bible i think they are described as being single monsters unnable to reproduce (if i am not mistaken).

edit: but lets say humans and dino coexisted, then you have a big problem. What could possibly have killed the dino and not humans? (in fact, the way science sees it, if the dino hadn't died, we wouldn't be here; as the dino dying is what allowed mammals to come out of their trees and conquer the land previously dominated by dino)


Anyway, the problem here is that people denying evolution also denie radioactive dating, i might start linking videos on that too :)


Intelligent Design and Evolution (11 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOEz9aPZNY&index=3&list=PL7A9646BC5110CF64

edit: the 7th link is not the 7th link anymore, but i was talking about this link;=:
What is the Evidence for Evolution? (11min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg&index=19&list=WL

Edited 4/21/2015 12:32:25

You guys haven't realised something... when there are multiple points of view, only one can be correct, even though none of them may be correct.

How eyes evolved (45min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_s1cmOjvAQ

OMG... WE ARE NOT GORILLAS, WE WILL NEVER BE GORILLAS, WE WERE NEVER GORILLAS!

IF YOU WANT TO PERSIST IN THINKING YOU ARE A GORILLA, GO LIVE WITH 'EM IN A ZOO...

You still sound like a gorilla.

Also, I'm surprised no one has thought about this :L

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo#List_of_species