You can't breed an X into a Y, therefore evolution is false

See? You atheists simply cannot answer this question. I don't care if you think everything is an example, you're wrong and it's not. Give 1 example we can scrutinize and prove that YOU are scientifically illiterate and take this whole theory on faith. But your logic, you make evolution inherently unfalsifiable. Sounds like a religion. *hyuk*

See

They are stupid

what is your definition of macro?

I'm not an atheist, and I did answer your question.
Since you're so fixated on specific examples, how about we start with the dolphin, a creature that almost certainly went from living in the sea, then on land, and then back to the sea again.

I don't think you understand. Stop trying to project what you think you know about evolutionary theory onto me. I'm willing to believe anything, given the requisite amount of evidence to do so.

Here we go. Semantics. What do you think it is?

can macro-evolution be described by a population of insects that develop a resistance to a pesticide?

>dolphin

Thanks for making me squeeze an answer out of you. The dolphin was never a land animal, that doesn't even follow a logical train of thought. By this logic, whales were also land animals.

It's abundantly clear that your definition of "macroevolution" is whatever can satisfy your arbitrary, human requirements for what counts as "significant" change.

There is no clear definition because it is not a scientific term.

Now, are you going to scrutinize my example of "macroevolution" or not?

> (You)
>can macro-evolution be described by a population of insects that develop a resistance to a pesticide?

Are you serious? That is textbook microevolution. Yet here you are: ready to LARP as a Jow Forums astronaut.

Is that your scrutinization? That's how you're going to prove I'm scientifically illiterate? By simply making a claim (a false one, I might add), which no supporting evidence whatsoever?

Why would a creature that breathes air not have originally lived on land? Yes, the whale also used to live on land. How you find that as a stretch of the imagination is beyond me.

Talk about projection. How about you take a few labored breathes before your next reee.

There is no textbook microevolution. All evolution is the same. Microevolution is not a term found in any textbooks.

>Christians who take the Bible as literal fact.
We call these people “retards” user.
t. R Catholic

You:
>fish crawls up to land
>grows legs
>naw.jpg
>crawls back in water
>loses legs

I think that speaks for itself. Whales also do not have vestigal structures. Nothing does. This is a rabbit hole you clearly aren't prepared for. I think your entire theory(actually, i know) is contingent on the great age of the earth. Where we put God, you put your god: "time". You attribute time to give you things beyond the scope of the Scientific Method(this exists), and therefore you make your theory an inherently unfalsifiable religion. We can continue talking about how you can't prove the dolphin/whale were land animals, or we can accelerate this to 6000 year old earth vs 4.2 billion. Up to you. Just remember: you claim dolphins/whales were land animals. I am simply going to ask you to substantiate that.

>However, that completely misses the point, as evolutionary theory does not espouse that you can choose a creature, and breed another creature into the chosen creature

Except this is exactly what evolution teaches in regards to traits of a species. They claim that eyes have "evolved" over 50 different times in separate species and call it convergent evolution instead of recognizing it's a design pattern from the same creator.
There's even DNA that pops up in entirely separate species that are allegedly hundreds of millions of years apart and evolutionists must desperately pretend that a virus or something "stole" some DNA from one species and spliced the DNA in a different species. They literally believe that. It's kind of like what you see in comic books where spiderman got his powers from a spider bite that gave him some spider dna ROFL. The name for this comic-book tier fiction is lateral gene transfer and it's patently absurd.

Obviously you can't say evolution is random when you see the same highly complex patterns, structures, traits and even DNA itself inexplicably coexist in unrelated species. I know evolutionists will claim darwinian evolution is based on randomness until they're blue in the face but the evidence says many aspects of life today are not random, and of course the opposite of random is structured, and nature being structured means intelligent design.

>calling people retards
>worship this guy

Attached: 20180630_000054.jpg (420x340, 46K)

Maybe this will help you. I like visuals.

Attached: Slide311.jpg (330x298, 35K)

Again, I am in awe at your grand attempt at outing me as "scientifically illiterate" when your argument boils down to:
>naw.jpg
No, that does not speak for itself. The fact that you think it does is laughable.

Quick question so I can check to see if I'm wasting my time, how do you rationalize the existence of fossils of creatures that aren't even close to creatures that exist today?

It’s called having respect for other religions user. If some of them try to pull some dumb shit that doesn’t mean I’ll hesitate sending them to their “72 Virgins”.

Because it's true

No, you're just committing the same fallacy of false equivocation I alluded to in the original posts. Breeding one creature into another, specific creature is not the same thing as breeding a creature into a random, different creature. I refuse to discuss with you any further until you acknowledge this point.

There are still wolves and wolves are not dogs. Wolves and dogs are two different species.

No. Won't let you move goalposts already. That would turn this from a discussion to a circus. Quick rundown:
Me: best example for microevolution
You: dolphins were land animals
Me: go on
You: *new subject*

No, thanks. This is not a freakshow. Learn to have civil discourse and try again.

1 John 2:23
2 John 1:9-11
Have ye not read?

holy fuck how can christians be this dumb

Are they the same kind of animal? (Kind=able to have viable offspring)

Yeah the atheists have pushed evolution as a fact without gathering enough evidence. It should be referred to as a generally accepted theory in scientific community. Instead they oversell it as 100% fact and then try to fill in the inconsistencies desperately.

Not an argument.

Yeah that's not even close to what a moved goalpost is. Considering your utter terror at answering my question, I'm going to assume the worst and that I am, indeed, wasting my time.

You argue like a jew. You were scathing from the start, and now you're demanding civil discourse? What you consider discourse consists of absurd colloquialisms and an complete dearth of evidence, all with a excoriating attitude. You are a cretinous wretch.

what kind of argument would work against you? it can be genetically proven that we are related to all living organisms
the mere fact that you accept microevolution exists invalidates your entire viewpoint, macroevolution is simply the accumulation of changes from microevolution over hundreds of thousands of years

You’re so fucking pseud it hurts.

Attached: 91419B36-A2F6-4665-A56C-9BBBF146B12C.jpg (1024x819, 134K)

Considering your utter terror at answering my question

Talk about projection. I didn't even finish reading your question when i realized you were trying to shift topic already. You claimed dolphins were land animals and got too scared to substantiate it. Intellectually illiterate on this subject. Could care less if you stop (You)'ing me.

>You argue like a jew. You were scathing from the start, and now you're demanding civil discourse? What you consider discourse consists of absurd colloquialisms and an complete dearth of evidence, all with a excoriating attitude. You are a cretinous wretch.

Ad hominem. Kikes are funny like that.

>Breeding one creature into another, specific creature is not the same thing as breeding a creature into a random, different creature.
Of course this is right you brainlet. It's exactly not what I was talking about whatsoever. The specific traits are supposedly random, but they end up the same in unrelated separate species very very often and "hundreds of millions" of years later. I predicated my entire argument that it was in regards to traits in species, not species themselves. Thus no false equivocation.

Don't bother discussing with me, You're an idiot. I was talking to other user.

Shut up and answer the question. Give one example that can stand up to criticism. 1 example for microevolution or admit you can't.

MACRO*

>Thinking another user you have been talking to earlier this thread is the same one
>Acuse them of moving goalposts
Just go outside for a walk user. You clearly need a break.

man evolving from homo erectus to homo sapiens

It is in direct relation to what you were talking about, as you claimed explicitly
>Except this is exactly what evolution teaches in regards to traits of a species
Random traits arriving at an optimal strategy is not difficult at all to understand. If you do have difficulties understanding it, I would suggest pondering on what an ecological niche is and what the optimal strategies to fulfill that niche is.
That is what convergent evolution is, and it is not at all a counterargument to evolution. Your entire argument is predicated on nothing.

I would suggest that you stop entertaining this fool. Just review his previous posts in this thread to see that you are completely wasting your time. He doesn't even have a reason as to why fossils exist in his made-up ideology.

dogs and wolves evolving to two separate species

All of you evolutioners riddle me this.
If evolution is real, who made it.
Oh man really makes you think doesnt it faggots.

1) that didnt happen at all.
2) hypothetically, if it did, it's the same kind of animal(i.e. they would be interfertile). Therefore this is another case of microevolution.
3) this didnt happen at all.

Textbook microevolution. Dogs and wolves are the same kind of animal, as they can produce viable offspring.

Felinae evolving into different genuses like Felis and Acinonyx

Too scared to engage me, so you whisper in other ears. Hey satan. How about you come back when you can substantiate outrageous claims like land-walking dolphins before you have to sperg into a new goalpost.

We can confirm our genetic origin to previous species via DNA testing fossils that age way before any modern human remains can be found

I'm going to stop answering you if you keep blatantly softball pitching textbook examples of microevolution. Surely you understand this basic facet of the topic? You're honestly jusy proving me right about LARPing while scientifically illiterate.

DUDE THIS SHIT JUST CAME INTO BEING ACCIDENTALLY FOR NO REASON GUIDED BY NOTHING LMAO

Attached: kinesin-gif-2.gif (320x240, 1.47M)

I'm not going to engage in discussion with someone who doesn't even know the rules of the game. You can shit on the board all you want, that doesn't mean you won. I could at least appreciate a person who has got the requisite level of intellect to understand the rules and know when he's lost, but you don't even have that. You are an insect. I've seen enough arguments from imbeciles to know when to quit.

because its true? or how about you actually provide a counter argument

??

Attached: image.png (883x297, 68K)

Do you not believe in machine learning?

All marine mammals like whales and dolphins originate from the same species that attempted to live on land but failed and had to move in to water, hence the apparently useless hipbone that is a characteristic of land animals, specifically mammals
There are other common characteristics that show common origin to mammals, like breastfeeding, common DNA, etc.

How are cats and leopards examples of microevolution?

If you can breed a duck into a lobster, just imagine what else you can breed a duck into. Must be some crazy shit out there in the universe.

Attached: 132154.jpg (800x530, 166K)

Listen: do you understand the difference in macro and micro? Dogs and wolves are the same kind of animal. They are entirely different "species".
So is a lion and a tiger. Entirely different species. Same kind of animal.

And before you say
>define kind

Able to give off viable offspring. Like the Bible says.

I

Attached: %5C_Six_Types_of_'Evolution'%5C__by_Dr._Kent_Hovind.png (1148x864, 1.09M)

How about you use your eyeballs and read the posts in this thread.

This is ridiculous, you provide no definition for macroevolution yet are surprised when nobody meets your definition. You should first provide a definition or distinction between macro and micro evolution.

Given the right environment and an adequate amount of time you could breed anything into anything
Although not an example of breeding on a large scale to create a completely new species, humans have been preferentially breeding animals like dogs, cows, and horses for thousands of years

You are a sperg who chickened out when you had to substantiate your first claim. Sad.

You cannot substantiate that claim. Vestigal structures? There are none. Whales do not have "hip bones" indicative of previous legs. Prove me wrong.

They are the same kind of animal. Stand 15 feet away and say otherwise.

The reason animals that aren't cousins still are very similar phenotypically is because they have both evolved into the same evolutionary niche.
For example, the fossa. The fossa looks very cat-like, but is more closely related to the meerkat. It has evolved to fill the same niche as cats did, and developed cat like features.

Attached: not a cat.jpg (653x435, 35K)

a cat and a leopard can't reproduce
the bible is irrelevant to scientific classing of animals
they are divided into families, subfamilies, genuses, etc
if two animals belong in a different genus it means they are what you would describe as "different kinds"
a cat and a leopard belong in different genuses, but in the same subfamily
it's an example of macroevolution

>Random traits arriving at an optimal strategy is not difficult at all to understand
you're right it's not at all difficult to understand. It's just mathematically impossible to have separate species developing the same insanely complex optimal traits in tandem. Vision happening once is a miracle defying astronomical odds. But happening 50 times in 50 unrelated species all on accident is just religion tier belief. You can't say anything to make that fact not true (especially that pathetic accusation "you just don't understand it like I do") so again don't bother.

>Whales do not have "hip bones" indicative of previous legs. Prove me wrong.
pic related
they are not as explained in

Attached: whale.jpg (700x248, 25K)

>greek stupillectual

It's not accidental.

It's advantageous to living beings. It is a beneficial mutation. It didn't pop into existence in its current form, it evolved from a different process.

What's your explanation? GAWD DUN IT?

Dolphins and Whales have already been brought up. And yes, they did evolve onto land and evolve back into water.
Think about the hippo. The whale is just a deep-water hippo that evolved more fin-like hands. It really isn't that hard to understand.

New bird species with observable phenotypical differences have been observed to develop in less than 150 years on Galapos.

sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

Well this isn't really new ground. I am bringing nothing new to the table other than the Creation argument that's been rehashed for several decades. The lines of macro and micro are this: variations within a kind (micro) vs kind evolving into anothrt kind (macro). A pea plant which developes frost residtance is still a pea plant. People try to breed bigger pigs: they'll never get one as big as Texas. There are genetic limits that restrict animals to be within their kind. Small dogs, big dogs, but won't even give birth to a cat or horse.

cant provide any i see fuck off and make quality threads next time faggot maybe you breed for a hundred million years you might get rid of your stupidity

Domesticated animals and plants are all examples of macro evolution

You have to ask to yourself:
ALL CHRISTIANS THINK LIKEWISE?
or is just another kind of STRAWMANNING?

Yeah god definitely gave enough of a shit to design every molecular biological process to give us stuff like this

That's not a genetic limitation, that's physics. The mass of the creature will go up exponentially, while the size will only increase linearly. This results in a creature too heavy too exist: so it doesn't. It's nothing to do with genes.
A kind evolving into another kind? You wouldn't consider the small, flatfaced pug macro-evolution from the wolf it is descended from 35,000 years ago?

Absolutely not an example of macroevolution. Anyone with any integrity will tell you that is the same kind of animal. Maybe the definition of kind is shaky, but so is your definition of species.

Those are not hip bones. In fact, that image makes the claim even more absurd looking. Hip. Bones. Vs that giant body.

Pure conjecture. Science involves demonstrable or observable evidence. If you take it on faith, fine, but you need to come up front and admit that faith is a large part of it.

Started with a bird, ended with a bird. Textbook microevolution.

Pretty sure all living things evolving from bacteria are evidence of macroevolution, but since folks need hands held, we'll select humans. We can reliably trace humans back to aquatic ancestors, that should be sufficient.

Tfw followers of sky fairies have had thousands of years to provide evidence of a "creator", but have failed miserably. Your feels don't make things true user.

Oh, and let's not forget that random mutation has a catalyst. It's called survival instinct. It's also not that weird for multiple things to have eyes given they all have a common ancestor.

You can't be a Christian and still agree on the evolution?

Why do you always post images of sexy women when it's proven such images temporarily lower male IQ. KYS shill.

If there's food in a long flower, it's not "insanely complex" by any stretch of the imagination to grow a long tongue that can reach it.

Wow, moths and hummingbirds did just that. It's convergent evolution! Only god could have conceived of such a complex strategy as long tongues.

youtu.be/_OSRKtT_9vw?t=125

Creationism is stupid because it assumes the animals existed all along. Yet there is no evidence of many currently existing species of living thing having living more than 100 million years ago. For example, there are no fossils of wild horse, cat, dog or rats from 100 million years ago. What scientists find are various fossils of different species who do not exist today. And they find the fossils of many species that currently exist today up to tens of thousands of years ago, if not hundreds of thousands. But not more than a million.

So there is a problem with your myth.

And there's also the reality that you very likely have a little bit of tail. You can feel it with your fingers by exploring the area above your ass crack and between your ass cheeks. This is vestigial and the remnant of a tail your primate ancestors had tens of millions of years ago.

Attached: coccyx.jpg (364x266, 27K)

Evolution can't be completely right about the human evolution, because matter cannot generate consciousness, since consciousness is necessary for the existence of matter.

A "bird" isn't a species, dimwit. There was an observable new species that was formed quite quickly.

>The birds had a different song from G. fortis, as well as different beak size and shape, and these are what the finches use to attract mates. Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.
> Reproductively, the new species was completely isolated, and had to mate within its own kind to survive.
>AND HAD TO MATE WITHIN ITS OWN KIND TO SURVIVE

They are in fact hip-bones, and emerged from whales losing their hind legs for more energy efficiency as it reduces drag and energy consumption. See pic, tiny hip bones come from tiny back legs come from small back legs come from big back legs.
You have completely ignored my hippo comparison and demanded factual evidence. But earlier you were ridiculing the idea of an animal going on land and returning to water, and the hippo is obvious proof of that.
Here's some proof by the way
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_03
>inb4 you can't prove they evolved from those creatures
Those creatures don't exist anymore, so unless you think they all went extinct and the whale just appeared from thin air I'd like to know what those creatures "microevolved" into and what the whale "microevolved from"
If you don't believe the whale evolved from a land animal, what sea animal did it evolve from?

In either case, you start and begin with the same thing. Start with a dog, end with a dog. Start with a pea plant, end with a pea plant. Micro.

>You wouldn't consider the small, flatfaced pug macro-evolution from the wolf it is descended from 35,000 years ago?

No, because it is the same kind: dog. With each offspring, the genetic code LOSES. That is to say: the gene pool of the new variety becomes more limited. You are losing, not gaining: the opposite of evolution.

>Those are not hip bones
Those, are in fact, hipbones. Or what is left of them. Whales are in the process of expulsing them. It's an example of evolution in progress and utterly invalidates what you said about the whales having no vestigal structures.
>Absolutely not an example of macroevolution
absolutely an example of macroevolution
macroevolution is evolution above the scale of species, and not only are cats and leopards of different species, they are of entirely different genuses, completely valid example of macroevolution

What about this

Attached: abos.jpg (940x627, 170K)

>the same kind: dog
The wolves they evolved from aren't even alive anymore, but I'll acknowledge that they are similar enough to make a distinction.
We're the same kind as chimps, would so this proves we are related, or is it just pure coincidence?
Evolution isn't about gaining or losing by the way, it's just having offspring and the most ft one survives. Pugs are alive but their wolf ancestors are long gone.

i think you have a warped idea in your head about what macro and micro evolution really is and how species are classified

1) Your strawman is that I am a Old Earth creationist. I am not. I believe the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate to the degree that God made everything in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago.
2) This directly addresses all points of your post, including the so-called "human tail". The coccyx is vital in that it is an anchor point to many different muscles. Without it: you cannot reproduce, defecate and in all likelihood: move.
3) If you agree that a literal Bible creation story puts a damper on your scrutiny, we can talk about how proving an Old Earth is scientifically impossible. I said much earlier in the thread that all arguments would boil down to this.

So then how do you explain fossils? Put there by the devil?