Atheists Are Wrong About Evolution?

Question

There are two kinds of evolution, macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution can be observed in nature for example certain bacterial adopt or become resistant to certain treatments. There is no dispute that micro evolution happens.The problem is that there is no evidence that proves macro evolution(humans evolved from primates) happens. To make it simple, a group of Australian creationists asked Richard dawkins(evolutionist) if there is any record of "information creating" mutation and Dawkins admitted that there was none. What we call mutation is inhibiting certain features of a cell or bacteria but there has never been any evidence whatsoever that proves information creating mutation and that means macro evolution is nothing but a speculation, it is still a theory. Do you see how flawed this theory is?what do you think?

Answer 1

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept the big bang and evolution!



Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!



Nice that christians and atheists can agree and laugh together even if it is at fundie expense!



But behind the laughter is the despair at the fundamentalists striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!



Surveys suggest that 29% of American christians are so extremist in their beliefs that they fall well outside of the accepted bounds of christianity!



Please state which extremist sect you belong to so that GOOD christians can disassociate themselves from you and explain why your sect is so at odds with Christianity!



Just another fundamentalist striving so hard to destroy christianity by turning it from a religion to an ideology!

Answer 2

The problem is that there is no evidence that proves macro evolution(humans evolved from primates) happens.



- Since the only simplistic concept you can understand is - humans from apes - it is not surprising that is all you can say. Since it is absurd and false we continue to wonder why you spew this garbage. There is massive evidence that both apes and man evolved from a common species.



if there is any record of "information creating" mutation



- There are aren't 2 fundies alive that agree on what "information creating" is. There, again, is massive evidence of mutations adding information, both positive and negative, aspects to the genome. CCR5, SRGAP2, AM1, FOXP2 and MYH16 are a few significant ones.



What we call mutation is inhibiting certain features of a cell



- That is what you "believe" but then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.



it is still a theory



- So is gravity.



Do you see how flawed this theory is?what do you think?



What I think is that you have no idea about which you speak. Read something other than fundie captions.

Answer 3

You are merely ignorant or are lying.



Firstly, there is no distinction made between micro and macro evolution in evolutionary science. That is merely something that creationists claim.It is all the same process, the amount of time just varies.



Second, evidence that mutations can and have added information to a Genome exists in the following studies (to name a few)...



- Increased genetic variety in a population demonstrated by Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991



- Increased genetic material demonstrated by Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003



- Novel genetic material demonstrated by Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996



- Novel genetically-regulated abilities demonstrated by Prijambada et al. 1995



Besides, anything that can be done by mutation can be undone by one so how can you possibly claim that it is otherwise?



2/10 Must try harder. More research needed.



I'm so sick of endlessly having to educate ignorant creationists. Pick up a book other than the bible every now and then you morons.

Answer 4

You have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites.



First, as @secretsauce pointed out, Dawkins was lied to by his interviewers, and he never admitted any such thing as you said. He couldn't have admitted to any such thing because he knows quite well the mechanisms that can result in increased genetic information.



See this site for a list of other sites that show how an increase in genetic information can occur.



http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm



Scientific theories always remain theories no matter how much evidence is found in support of them. That is because scientific theories are explanations of facts and they remain such.



Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation of how evolution occurs.



>>"The problem is that there is no evidence that proves macro evolution(humans evolved from primates) happens."



Again, you have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites.



Take a look at this.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html



And there is this.



About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.



That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.



Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2. (The link is to an abstract of the article. The full article is available for a fee. Sorry)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525



The following site (which is an NIH human genome site), however, does have this statement: "Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002."



http://www.genome.gov/13514624



These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html



No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to lie or to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.





The only thing creationists have ever proved is that they are ignoramuses.



Present company not excepted.

Answer 5

Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

Evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. So if microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, please explain what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter.

Answer 6

Really? Atheism has nothing to do with science, so you're saying Francis Collins is wrong because he accepts the theory of evolution? Or Ken Miller who's Roman Catholic and still accepts the theory of evolution? You also need to know exactly what a theory is. The fact is evolution, the theory is evolution by natural selection.

Answer 7

micro evolution takes place fast and you can observe it .



but macro evolution usually takes a lot of time. you cant observe in your life time.



may be thats why you are denying the latter.



why do you think nature is biased against bigger animals ? hahaha

Answer 8

I'm not explaining this again.





If you're actually serious about figuring this out, you'll research, not ask in the religion section of a popular socialization site

Answer 9

Just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's wrong..... it just means it hasn't been proven yet.



God did it..... can't you see how flawed this theory is? Hell this isn't even a theory as there isn't even an indication that any god exists.

Answer 10

I think that this question has been done to death. Evolution is a fact - suck it up.



Next.

Answer 11

Actually, in a way, there is only one type of evolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution with a larger time scale.

Answer 12

>"Atheists Are Wrong About Evolution?"



Atheists don't "own" evolution. Both atheists and devout Christians accept evolution.



E.g. the following are names of biologists who are devout Christians and who accept evolution. (You can Google each of these names and verify this):

* Francis Collins (born-again evangelical Christian, biologist, current head of the NIH, author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief").

* Kenneth Miller (devout Catholic and biologist, author of "Finding Darwin's God"),

* Francisco Ayala (ordained priest and biologist who accepts evolution),

* Theodosius Dobzhansky (orthodox Christian),

* Asa Gray (devout Presbyterian),

* Alfred Russel Wallace (devout Anglican),

* Richard G. Colling (of Olivet Nazarene University),

* Darrel Falk (of Point Loma Nazarene University),

* Denis Lamoureaux (of St. Joseph's College),

* R.J. Berry, Dennis Venema, Keith Miller, Kathryn Applegate, Joan Roughgarden, Simon Conway Morris, ... and I could give more. PLEASE look them up.



Again, those are all *biologists*, all devout Christians ... and all accept evolution.



It's not just atheists who accept evolution. Not by a long-shot.





>"There are two kinds of evolution, macro and micro evolution. "



No. Sorry. The terms microevolution and macroevolution are not different "kinds" evolution. They refer to different levels of STUDY of evolution ... in the same way that 'microecononics' and 'macroeconomics' are not different "kinds" of economics.



To give another example ... we sometimes refer to the 'microgrowth' of a tree (the study of how the cells are dividing) vs. the 'macrogrowth' of the tree (the study of how the tree gets taller, and structures such as branches, twigs, and leaves appear). When you accept that 'microevolution' is true, but 'macroevolution' cannot occur as a result ... that is like declaring that 'microgrowth' of a tree is observed (we can see cells dividing under a microscope), but 'macrogrowth' (the tree getting taller) cannot occur as a result.





>"The problem is that there is no evidence that proves macro evolution(humans evolved from primates) happens."



Of course there is:

"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



The fact that you *reject* that evidence, does not mean that it doesn't exist.



Why do you think scientists accept 'macroevolution' if not for evidence?





>"To make it simple, a group of Australian creationists asked Richard dawkins(evolutionist) if there is any record of "information creating" mutation and Dawkins admitted that there was none."



No he didn't. You got the story wrong.



This is a rather well-known story about these Australian creationists who duped Dawkins into an interview. When he realized he had been duped, he stopped the interview. The worst thing they caught on camera was a long silence, as Dawkins considered what to say next. That's it. Just silence. Dawkins NEVER "admitted there was none."



One long silence in an interview doesn't "disprove" a core principle of science.





>"What we call mutation is inhibiting certain features of a cell or bacteria but there has never been any evidence whatsoever that proves information creating mutation"



Of course there is:

Example: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm



Again, the fact that you never heard of that evidence ... and will probably blindly reject it anyway ... does not make that evidence go away.





>"and that means macro evolution is nothing but a speculation, it is still a theory."



When you say "still a theory", it only indicates that you have never heard of the 'theory of gravity', 'cell theory', 'atomic theory', 'molecular theory', 'photon theory', 'quantum theory', the 'theory of relativity', 'heliocentric theory', the 'germ theory of disease', the 'gene theory of inheritance' ... and on and on.



Those are ALL called "theories" ... and ALWAYS WILL BE. Not because any scientists seriously doubt them. Not because they have not yet been "proven". Not because they are 'not yet facts'. ... But because they are all EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORKS for understanding facts (observations).



That is basic, basic, basic science. 7th-grade science.



That is why Creationism will utterly *DESTROY* your science education.





>"Do you see how flawed this theory is?what do you think?"



I think that you clearly have not researched this at all ... you simply read stuff on creationist web sites, and then blindly repeat them in forums like this.



Believe me ... it doesn't actually accomplish anything. It doesn't change anybody's mind. It doesn't make us go "hmm ... I never heard of this 'micro' vs. 'macro' evolution thing, perhaps all the world's scientists are wrong."



Really, it doesn't.

Answer 13

I always can spot the snakes.



They post science questions in the religion section.



I AM NOT A SCIENTIST! Just like you are not a saint.

Answer 14

There are two kinds of evolution, macro and micro

----Aaaand we're done.

Answer 15

If I thought you were serious, I might give the effort of a real response.

Answer 16

define 'information creating' or kindly f*Ck off.

Answer 17

Magic sky wizard that always existed did it. Do you see how flawed THIS theory is?

Answer 18

And you think we are all descendants of a mud man and a rib woman?

Answer 19

I know you didn't think this up yourself. Consider your sources.

Answer 20

sigh......