Replies

I don't think you understand what the definition of macroevolution is. Many have been deceived by the charlatans at ICR or AIG.

I have been all over talkorigins.org. It treats evolution as a religion. The section on transitional species convinced me even more that there is no macroevolution and I have read all 29 of the supposed evidences of macroevolution.

But for me macroevolution goes all the way back. If it cannot show how we got from a single cell to a human being, I will not believe it can go from an ape or as of this week a platypus to a human.

To go from a single cell to a creature with arms and legs and a brain and even over 100 trillion years by random mutation is simply not believable. And of course many evolutionists back away from that and just do the ape to human stuff, but it still does not answer the basic question of why if we came from a single cell, and there are not creatures turning into different species with partially formed arms or legs (since such a complex thing cannot occur in one mutation).

Thus the latest inference is punctuated equilibrium and here we are.

I have been all over talkorigins.org. It treats evolution as a religion.

Then you obviously didn't understand it. No, it does not.

The section on transitional species convinced me even more that there is no macroevolution

How on *earth* did it do that?

and I have read all 29 of the supposed evidences of macroevolution.

And yet you still don't get it?

But for me macroevolution goes all the way back.

Well, of course.

If it cannot show how we got from a single cell to a human being,

It can, so there you have it.

I will not believe it can go from an ape

Even though there is overwhelming evidence that it has?

or as of this week a platypus to a human.

What *are* you babbling about here?

To go from a single cell to a creature with arms and legs and a brain and even over 100 trillion years by random mutation is simply not believable.

Fortunately, reality is not limited to what you personally are able to find "believable".

And of course many evolutionists back away from that and just do the ape to human stuff,

Huh? Who exactly "backs away from that"?

but it still does not answer the basic question of why if we came from a single cell, and there are not creatures turning into different species with partially formed arms or legs (since such a complex thing cannot occur in one mutation).

Could you rephrase that into an actual sentence which makes sense?

Thus the latest inference is punctuated equilibrium and here we are.

Horse manure. Punctuated equilibrium was described by Darwin in 1859. It's a logical consequence of the dynamics of evolutionoary processes.

...which you'd know if you had actually bothered reading the talkorigins.org site for educational purposes.