macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[Divine Insight]

In science that fact that you are not personally convinced of a theory does not bring the theory into question.

In science if you want to challenge a theory you need to propose a more compelling theory to replace it along with providing scientifically testable evidence to support your hypotheses.

So how do you propose that all the different species of plants, animals, and insects arose on Earth?

[Texan Christian]

In science that fact that you are not personally convinced of a theory does not bring the theory into question.

In science if you want to challenge a theory you need to propose a more compelling theory to replace it along with providing scientifically testable evidence to support your hypotheses.

So how do you propose that all the different species of plants, animals, and insects arose on Earth?

My theory would be that God created animals (microevolution does exist of course, so, for example, he would have created one species of dog which, due to MICROevolution, changed, but only WITHIN the boundaries of its own DNA.

Good day and God bless

[Goat]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

Well, there are plenty of examples of intermediate forms. You're incorrect in saying that there are 'few if any'.

Here is a list of just a few transitional fossils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... al_fossils

[Divine Insight]

My theory would be that God created animals

What is "God". Do you have a scientifically testable definition for this creative agent?

Where is your evidence that this "God" exists? Do you have any fossils of your God to present as evidence for the existence of this God?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on

At thirteen years of age, I gotta wonder how much study that involved.

(I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago)

Ten minutes to explain evolutionary theory seems like you're either a very fast talker, or you simply lack a full understanding of the theories / data / evidence involved.

there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none

I accept that scientists have a tough row to hoe here, what with us not being able to physically observe such drastic changes. The ToE is, however, a sound theory based on reams of data / evidence, and offers a far superior explanation than "God did it".

he commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape.

And in that hip we see evidence of bipedal locomotion, a character directly related to humans, who're apes.

(if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).

Your "much study" on evololutionary theory seems to have been at the expence of your studies on fossilization.

I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen.

Considering the subjective nature of "good", or "positive", I propose that changes are changes, and that by these changes, a critter may or may not be better suited to pass along its genes.

Is it "good", or "positive" that genetic changes in humans gave rise to a species that is capable of destroying the planet?

If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Done.

[H.sapiens]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10-minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected.

No you are proposing a strawman. There are not "intermediate links" though many (even biologists) incorrectly use this terminology as a convenient shorthand headless of the confusion that this creates for people like you. It is the existence of a common ancestor in past that one should be looking for, and that is often found.

The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

For an example of an indisputable "positive" mutation, take a look at the single point mutation that resulted in sickle cell anemia.

And ... never say "never." Especially when your "never" is inadequately based on just preparation for a 10-minute speech. Clearly all that study has lead you to issue such a sweeping statement, but it is a statement that demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the subject.

[Texan Christian]

From the OP:

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on

At thirteen years of age, I gotta wonder how much study that involved.

(I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago)

Ten minutes to explain evolutionary theory seems like you're either a very fast talker, or you simply lack a full understanding of the theories / data / evidence involved.

there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none

I accept that scientists have a tough row to hoe here, what with us not being able to physically observe such drastic changes. The ToE is, however, a sound theory based on reams of data / evidence, and offers a far superior explanation than "God did it".

he commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape.

And in that hip we see evidence of bipedal locomotion, a character directly related to humans, who're apes.

(if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).

Your "much study" on evololutionary theory seems to have been at the expence of your studies on fossilization.

I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen.

Considering the subjective nature of "good", or "positive", I propose that changes are changes, and that by these changes, a critter may or may not be better suited to pass along its genes.

Is it "good", or "positive" that genetic changes in humans gave rise to a species that is capable of destroying the planet?

If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Done.

-A decent amount, maybe 5 or 6 hours worth. I'm in a speech club.
-no... it was a 10 minute (I wasn't allowed to go over 10 minutes) about evidence against evolution.
-according to macroevolution there should be at least just as many intermediate links.
-by good I meant benefitting the creature, sorry if that wasn't clear.
-@divine insight Mine would be: An all powerful omniscient omnipresent spiritual being. Well, I could probably bring forward evidence for "miracles" which without a God or all powerful thing, most likely wouldn't have happened.

[Divine Insight]

-@divine insight Mine would be: An all powerful omniscient omnipresent spiritual being. Well, I could probably bring forward evidence for "miracles" which without a God or all powerful thing, most likely wouldn't have happened.

Every scientist would love to see evidence for "miracles", including myself.

The problem is that everyone who claims to have evidence for miracles seems to have a grave misunderstanding of what actually constitutes credible evidence. For this reason most rational people are willing to wait for the scientific community to verify a miracle claim. That way we can know that credible evidence exists. Thus far, it appears that all claims of supernatural miracles have been lacking credible evidence.

One thing we do have plenty of evidence for, however, is that theists will say just about anything to support their favorite religious myths.

[H.sapiens]

-A decent amount, maybe 5 or 6 hours worth. I'm in a speech club.

And you think that makes you knowledgeable? Please let me know what sources you read. Did you read Origin of Species, or Selfish Gene, or Ancestor's Tale, Animal Species and Evolution, Wonderful Life, or Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters, or Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, or The Blind Watchmaker? No, well ... you'd best get busy. Come back when you can explain to us the phenomena and importance of ring species and identify at least two of the three commonly used as examples.

-no... it was a 10 minute (I wasn't allowed to go over 10 minutes) about evidence against evolution.

So of course, your only sources were materials that I maintain lied to you and that purported to provide "evidence" against evolution. Are you willing to identify and defend those sources here and now?

-according to macroevolution there should be at least just as many intermediate links.

I have already explained to you why this is a bankrupt argument. Read the Introduction to The Ancestor's Tale.

-by good I meant benefitting the creature, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Clarity is at the core of good communication.

-@divine insight Mine would be: An all powerful omniscient omnipresent spiritual being. Well, I could probably bring forward evidence for "miracles" which without a God or all powerful thing, most likely wouldn't have happened.

Good luck.