[Hunble]

Micro-evolution is like measuring the distance between each step I take (2 1/2 feet) and it can be well documented.

A scientist can use a video recorder and watch me as I walk to the grocery store a few block away. He is able to document that my movement of 2.5 feet per step is able to get me to my local grocery store.

To prove his theory, he takes a few still images. One is at my home at 5:23 PM and another is taken at 6:01 PM when I arrived at the store. He knows the distance between my house and the store, and using my walking speed, can easily demonstrate that I can walk that distance in that period of time.

Now this same scientist has spend time to research my history. 10 years ago, I lived in New Mexico but today, I am living in Minnesota.

This scientist does not know how I moved between New Mexico and Minnesota, but he has a theory of how it was done.

He can compute that in 10 years, it was very possible that I could have walked the 1,000 miles between the different locations. Actually, I drove the distance in only 2 days, but he has no idea about my car.

A scientist will evaluate the facts presented to him and present a theory that can explain the known information. As he learns more information, his theories will change to adapt to the new information.

If this scientist learns that I had a car at the time, and it can move at the speed of 55 mph (ok, 70 mph when no cops around), he will adjust his theories about how I traveled between New Mexico and Minnesota.

What are the facts in this simple example?

1) I can walk at the rate of 2.5 feet per step.

2) Still images demonstrate that I do move between locations.

3) I moved from New Mexico to Minnesota. The actual dates are not recorded, but we have pictures taken 10 years apart showing the change in locations.

Even if the current theory of evolution is wrong, scientists are working with the facts provided to them.

My hypothetical scientist may conclude that I actually walked the 1,000 miles between New Mexico and Minnesota. He would be in error, but his analysis was based upon factual information.

Now you may think that this demonstrates how stupid scientists are. On the contrary, a good scientist will adapt their theories as new facts are learned. Eventually, a good scientist will get so close to the truth, that the differences are trivial.

And with luck, no scientist will tell the cops my exact driving speed!

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Using my example of a walking speed of 2.5 feet per step, it can be very well documented that white males can walk between locations around New York city.

In 1849, a huge number of white males showed up in California during the gold rush.

Using the rate of 2.5 feet per step, is it possible that these white males actually walked between New York and California?

And with my example of a car, the scientist may not know about ships transporting people between New York and California.

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The journey of a thousand leagues starts with but a single step. (Attributed to Kung Fu Tze)

[rucrazee]

You are missing my point completely and perhaps you didn't read through my ENTIRE, long-winded post. I am not arguing for a minute the proofs cannot be found in the basics of MICROEVOLUTION, but I am arguing that Macroevolution cannot be empirically, scientifically proven. It is a belief. The basic model is that life came into existence through chance, without an intelligent creator. It's a model where a conclusion has already been agreed upon, and adjustments are made to support the conclusion. Evolutionists argue that these changes to the theory are just a regular part of good and proper science, but what if the conclusion itself is wrong? If my conclusion is that the earth is flat, I can give some pretty good arguments to support my theory, but ultimately I will be proved wrong. Macroevolution is flat earth science, that has already reached a conclusion and attempts to construct evidences to support it. Evolution is a belief. Creationism is a belief. If I use the Bible, quote from scientists who support a Christian worldview, or scientists who support intelligent design, you will most certainly dismiss it. You will say they are biased, they don't understand science, it's religion, etc. I say touche! I have heard it all many, many times. You also will assume that I have not read guys like Dawkins, Hawking, Gould and others water carriers of the theory. There are also guys like Behe, Phillip Johnson, Dembski and others who make sound arguments for intelligent design. Now we can argue the fact that there are absolutely no scientific evidences or laws that support non-life producing life. We can talk about atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, molecules, DNA, etc., but the real question is where did they come from. If they are the building blocks of life, then who made the blocks. If these blocks built something, then intelligence is at work, not chance. These threads nearly always deteriorate into name calling, and personal attacks rather than sound arguments. No one likes to have their worldview shaken. Any way, enough already.