Why do so many people believe in macroevolution when...?

Question

Why do so many people believe in the unconfirmed hypothesis of macroevolution when:

There are missing links in the fossil record. There's not one single fossil that shows an intermediate link. If macroevolution did occur, wouldn't there be loads of intermediate links?

Scientists have discovered fossils in the geological column that show that complex and simple species existed at the same time.

The sequence in amino acids in given organisms are all different from each other. Evolutionists believe that the most complex organisms have the biggest difference, when in fact even the simplest organism above yeast has very different amino acid sequence.

Also, why do people consider macroevolution to be a "fact" when it is only an unconfirmed hypothesis? Why is this unconfirmed hypothesis being so rushed, when it is so disorganized and doesn't even have the data to become a theory?

Answer 1

There are fewer "missing links" in the fossil record now than there were 50, 25, or 10 years ago.

Evolution is considered as a theory because it makes predictions that can be verified.

  

Answer 2

Why would you expect the fossil record to be complete? Surely, with your vast knowledge of this topic, you are aware that the conditions that lead to fossilization are rare? Has it never occurred to you that if fossilization were common we would be waist deep in skeletal remains?

Re: Scientists have discovered fossils in the geological column that show that complex and simple species existed at the same time.

-If you are serious, then post specific examples, perhaps from peer-reviewed journals. FYI “Watchtower” is not considered “peer-reviewed”.



Re: The sequence in amino acids in given organisms are all different from each other.

-Again, cite specific examples.

Re: Why do people consider macroevolution a fact? Well, I can’t answer for all people, only for myself, but having studied biology at the undergrad level and molecular and cellular biology at the M.Sc. and Ph.D. levels I happen to believe the evidence supporting evolution to be more logically consistent than alternative theories. I suspect I’m not alone in this.

Edit: Well Asker, after 24 hours it has not escaped my attention that you are able to post smarmy responses to Secretsauce yet when asked to give specific examples relevant to your claims you are unable to deliver.

Answer 3

Rather than answer this question for the hundredth time ... let's try something different:

How about if you offer an answer to your own question.

Why do YOU suppose the entire *SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY* is in that category of "so many people" absolutely convinced of the reality of macroevolution ... so much so that the scientists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution as separate *processes* and refer to them simply as "evolution"?

Why does the *SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY* refer to the Theory of Evolution (which is the highest compliment a scientist can bestow on an explanatory idea) rather than your insistence on calling it an "unconfirmed hypothesis"?

If there is no evidence ... then why?

If it is just a "disorganized unconfirmed hypothesis" ... then why on earth would the overwhelming consensus of scientists support it?

I'm serious ... why do YOU think?

>"Scientists have discovered fossils in the geological column that show that complex and simple species existed at the same time."

That's a bizarre argument.   We already know that complex and simple species exist at the same time ... just by looking at the species alive *TODAY*.  We have whales and sponges and amoebas and cyanobacteria all coexisting today!

So how does that contradict (macro)evolution?  Please explain.

>"Why is this unconfirmed hypothesis being so rushed, when it is so disorganized and doesn't even have the data to become a theory?"

Because only Creationists who are completely out of touch with science since the 1800's think that the Theory of Evolution is an "unconfirmed hypothesis" or that it was "rushed" (seeing as it was first published in 1859), or that it is "disorganized", or that it "doesn't have the data to become a theory."

Answer 4

> believe in

Scientists examine the evidence and come up with the best possible explanation for it.  Experiments are designed to test hypotheses.

If you like, you can examine all the evidence, come up with different hypotheses, test them, formulate a different theory, write it up, get it peer reviewed and published.  Have at it, by all means.

> hypothesis of macroevolution

It's a scientific theory.

> not one single fossil that shows an intermediate link

There are plenty of fossil equines.  Some of them are ancestors of the modern horses, zebras, donkeys, and thus would be considered "intermediate links."  Some aren't.

I strongly recommend you pick up a biology text like Campbell & Reece Biology, 7th or 8th edition, and give it a read through.

> complex and simple species existed at the same time.

...and your point being?  Complex and simple species exist today.  Nothing wrong with that.  It does not falsify evolution.

> has very different amino acid sequence.

You don't know what you're talking about (and I've put that kindly).

> why do people consider macroevolution to be a "fact"

What's your standard of proof?  If it's "preponderance of evidence" then evolution meets that standard.  It if's "beyond a reasonable doubt" then it meets that standard too.

But here's the kicker:  evolution is the BEST explanation for the biodiversity we see on semi-isolated archipelagoes and islands, and the lessons learned there can be applied to continents and oceans.

There are no good alternatives.  "Creationism" is speculation.  So is "Intelligent Design."

> doesn't even have the data to become a theory?

Yes it does, which is why it is referred to, by scientists, as the theory of evolution.