Buffalo wrote:Micro/Macro is largely a meaningless distinction. The only difference between the two is time. But "macro" HAS been directly observed, and is readily apparent in studies of DNA and the fossil record.
I'm afraid it's the totality of the evidence verses your ipse dixit proclamations.
That time you refer to is a mask that prevents observation. You guess what happened in the past.
You have witnessed species to species evolve? Great, tell me all about it.
The way I see it a guy wrote a book about a theory he had. A lot of people loved the theory because at the time naturalism was filling the universities. As time went by those who believed in the theory were promoted and those opposed kicked out. So in time the stage was set for all new data to be shoe horned into the theory. This has been going on for some time. It is complete nonsense.
We have billions of people in the world, where are the improvements promised by the theory? We have species going extinct, where are the new ones that are filling those holes? What we have is every complex species gathering defects from generation to generation and at some point all will cease to exist. Almost like someone programmed the design to last for just so long. And then a new body would be required. Seems to me I read that somewhere.
Buffalo wrote:Micro/Macro is largely a meaningless distinction. The only difference between the two is time. But "macro" HAS been directly observed, and is readily apparent in studies of DNA and the fossil record.
I'm afraid it's the totality of the evidence verses your ipse dixit proclamations.
That time you refer to is a mask that prevents observation. You guess what happened in the past.
You have witnessed species to species evolve? Great, tell me all about it.
The way I see it a guy wrote a book about a theory he had. A lot of people loved the theory because at the time naturalism was filling the universities. As time went by those who believed in the theory were promoted and those opposed kicked out. So in time the stage was set for all new data to be shoe horned into the theory. This has been going on for some time. It is complete nonsense.
We have billions of people in the world, where are the improvements promised by the theory? We have species going extinct, where are the new ones that are filling those holes? What we have is every complex species gathering defects from generation to generation and at some point all will cease to exist. Almost like someone programmed the design to last for just so long. And then a new body would be required. Seems to me I read that somewhere.
I'm going to take the rest of your commentary and edit it to reflect reality, based on facts, not religious fiction:
The way I see it a guy wrote a book about a theory he had. There was initially a lot of resistance to the theory, but it explained observations of the natural world, and as evidence piled up the theory was born out instead of falsified. Some fanatics who had religious reasons for opposing the theory made a big deal about being "expelled" from academia, but their stories turned out to be highly exaggerated and fictionalized.
We have billions of people in the world. Although the theory itself hasn't promised anything in the way of improvements, medical science has benefited greatly from the theory of evolution. It's helped us to better fight off infectious disease and develop gene therapies. We have species going extinct largely because conservatives think business is more important than nature, but this is completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Survival of the fittest. New species are emerging all the time, but slower than current ones are dying off, due to the actions of the most highly evolved species on the planet - homo sapiens.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.