RealityRick

@ywomendeservles Because she is nothing and has been since the moment she cheated. Consequences.

There is no evidence for macroevolution and no mechanisms for it. It requires new genetic information and mutations never create new information. They are a loss of information. Irreducable complexity is another fatal blow to the theory and no one at UC Berkeley or anywhere else can answer either problem.

Evolution is nothing but the change in allele frequency within a population over time. According to U.C. Berkeley, it is "is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next — microevolution) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations — macroevolution)." Where does it say that "nothing exists beyond the material world"? I don't see it. Also, evolution is definitely a scientific theory. You don't need to see macroevolution happening in order to infer it happens. The "observation" part of the scientific process is merely having evidence, ANY evidence, that you can SEE. What that means is having, say, transitional fossils, counts as having observable evidence of macroevolution. Observation doesn't mean observing an event like evolution from start to finish. It simply means having visible evidence of any kind.

Could God have used evolution and millions of years to create? No, God could not use evolution and millions of years. Now some are shocked when I say this as they say, “But God can do anything, he’s the infinite Creator.” Others have said, “But Luke 1:37 states, ‘For nothing will be impossible with God.’” God could not use (or have used) evolution and millions of years. To do so would go against his character. In fact, I would claim that for those Christians who believe in evolution and millions of years, they are condoning a process that is a direct attack on God’s character. God himself is the definition of good. The attributes of God (all loving, all merciful, etc.) are part of what “good” means. When God stepped into history in the person of his Son, he healed people of diseases. He raised people from the dead. After all, God’s Word describes death as an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Now today we live in a world of death and disease. This is described in Romans 8:22 as a groaning world because of our sin. God didn’t create the world this way because after he finished creating he said everything was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Our sin messed up this “very good” world resulting in death (which is an enemy, an intrusion), disease, and suffering. Now evolution involves a process of death, violence, and suffering over millions of years to supposedly produce all life including humans. The fossil record, which is supposedly a record of the evolution of life over millions of years, is replete with remains of all sorts of animals, with many bones showing evidence of diseases like cancer, abscesses, arthritis, and more. Now for those Christians who take man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years (which is really a pagan religion to try to explain life without God) and add it into the Bible, they are saying all these supposed millions of years of death and disease existed before man. Now after God created everything including man, he said everything he made was “very good.” In other words, one would have to then accept God is calling diseases like cancer and violence “very good.” That is an attack on the character of God. Instead of trying to add evolution into the Bible, we need to start with God’s Word.

Irreducable complexity has never been answered. It requires multiple very specific mutations to occur simultaneously and this very thing is in conflict with evolutionary theory and so statistically improbable to make it practically impossible to ever happen even once. Yes it would have to happen multiple times in the development of transition of every species

Actually, Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, and the whale series (Pakicetus → Ambulocetus → Basilosaurus) show clear intermediate traits in the right rock layers, backed by anatomy, stratigraphy, and genetics—not isolated guesses. Dozens more fossils fill these sequences across fish-tetrapod, reptile-bird, and land-mammal-aquatic transitions. The same microevolutionary mechanisms (mutation, selection, drift) scale to macro patterns over time. Gene duplications and insertions demonstrably add genetic information and new functions, as seen in observed speciation and lab evolution experiments. Irreducible complexity claims have been addressed by showing stepwise precursors in those systems.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok Again, micro and macro belong to the exact same theory. They're not different. Macro is just thousands/millions of micro changes huddled together in a big lump. We're not Pokemon. A fish won't birth a frog. However...

However for ant transition you need new genetic material and there is no source or mechanism for that material. This is why ambiogenesis and macroevolution fail. The transitional species are not in fact transitional. Without new genetic code no transition is possible in any timeframe. Darwin knew nothing of genes and how genetics works and his view of the cell was very provincial. Macroevolution is based on this incorrect model. The lack of a source for new genetic material and irreducable complexity, are fatal to both Macroevolution and ambiogenesis.

**Reply:** Evolution features both directions: early tetrapods moved sea-to-land ~375M years ago; whales later returned land-to-sea ~50M years ago from even-toed ungulate ancestors. Transitional fossils (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, etc.) show clear stepwise changes in limbs, ears, and vertebrae, corroborated by genetics and embryology. Micro/macro use the same mechanisms—mutation, selection, drift—over different timescales, per consensus sources like Berkeley Evolution. Gene duplication + mutation creates new functional info; this is observed in labs and wild populations, not just speculated.

@PaddyT0318 @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok You are still missing the key point. You need new genetic material for ambiogenesis and for macroevolution. There is no source or mechanism for that new material, so they both fail as theories.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok No. They are really not. Abiogenesis is an explanation for how life originally started. It does not answer why or how evolution occurs, it does not answer what happens to animal that mutate and it does not answer how animals change overtime. "Macro evolution" has existed (p1)

So, there is an argument that recessive genes are the product of mutations but this is speculation not science. In each case the argument says that the mutation occurred before recorded history so how can any of that be emperically verified? We know that blue eyes occurs now as a result of gene expression and genetic makeup of the parents. However, let say, for sake of argument, blue eyes are a mutation. It would be an example of microevolution which is observable and has been empirically verified and has been experimentally reproduced. Blue eyes in any case do not support an argument for the existence of macroevolution.

**Yes**, blue eyes are caused by a specific, well-documented genetic mutation. It's a founder mutation (primarily in a regulatory element of the HERC2 gene affecting OCA2 expression) that reduces melanin production in the iris. This change originated in a single common ancestor roughly 6,000–10,000 years ago, and nearly all blue-eyed people today trace back to that one mutation. It's been extensively studied in genetics research since at least 2008.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok Blue eyes are a very well documented gene mutation.

Macroevolution and ambiogenesis are linked. Darwinism relies on ambiogenesis as a starting point. I have explained several times now Macroevolution does not exist. There is literally zero evidence for it. There is no mechanism in macroevolution or ambiogenesis to create new genetic information and new genetic info is required for one creature to become something else entirely. Mutations are the loss of genetic info not the gain of it. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok The link you gave me started talking about abiogenesis in a topic where it's not required, needed or relevant. I'm asking for a specific source that states the differences between macro and micro evolution. One that supports your idea they are completely different.

Simply the best. Give Me a shout if you’re a fellow Gen X……

I gave you a link of scientists and their published works all dealing with this...that is dozens of sources in one link. You keep pretending that macroevolution exists...it doesn’t and there is nothing scientificly that provides any hard evidence it actually exists. You have as much science supporting fairies and leprechauns as you do macroevolution....none

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok Why? Why are they different? I still haven't seen an actual source describing why they are completely different things. Every source I have looked at describes the difference as timescale. Micro is a small timescale, macro is a big timescale.

Actually neither of those are examples of intermediary species. They are theorized by evolutionary biologists to be so but there is no evidence that either every became something else. The argument the fossil record is incomplete is weak because there are millions of fossils of creatures but at best, there are only a couple highly disputed finds and nothing to suggest those were transitional. You need a starting species and an ending one for that or a chain of progression of intermediary specimens, which is not the case. This brings us back to marco and microevolution being very different things. One is proven, the other has no solid scientific evidence at all. The best evidence that can be provided is highly speculative and the core facts about what the samples are, are disputed. These two things are not the same. Irreducable complexity also destroys the idea that one species can transform into another. So does the fact mutations do not create new "information" in the form of DNA. They alter info the same way you might alter computer code. Random changes in code result in errors not new code. You way get a different result but it will be due to an information loss. You can't create a new species based on losing information.

The fossil record is incomplete (fossilization is rare), but it does contain well-documented transitional forms matching evolutionary predictions: Tiktaalik (fish-to-tetrapod intermediates with wrist-like fins and neck), Archaeopteryx (dino-to-bird with teeth, tail, and feathers), and whale ancestors like Basilosaurus (land-mammal-like limbs in fully aquatic forms). These are corroborated by genetics, embryology, and biogeography—not isolated "frauds" like the long-debunked Piltdown case. Macroevolution isn't expected to show every instant of change but cumulative patterns over deep time, consistent with observed microevolution scaled up.

@grok You forget the fossil record and the fact we should see species in a state of transformation if macroevolution was true. We see no evidence in the fossil record ( we have seen a number of scientific frauds attempted though) and we see no species "in transition". This places the macroevolutionary theory in the same scientific place a leprechauns and fairies with regard to hard scientific support.

**Microevolution** (short-term changes within populations) is directly observable and repeatable in labs. **Macroevolution** (larger patterns like speciation and diversification) unfolds over much longer timescales, so we don't expect to watch a fish become a frog in a human lifetime. That said, speciation—the core of macroevolution—**has** been directly observed and documented multiple times: apple maggot flies evolving host-specific reproductive isolation, polyploid plants forming new species instantly, and multiple lab and field cases in insects, fish, and plants. The fossil record, DNA evidence (shared errors, chromosome fusions, phylogenetics), and biogeography all independently support these processes accumulating into the broader patterns we see. It's the same mechanisms, just scaled by time—not faith, but testable predictions across data.

@grok you say that however if this were true they should both have the same scientific evidence as support. Microevolution has been observed and reproduced. Macroevolution has never been observed since Darwin proposed the idea nor has it ever been reproduced in a century and a half of trying. Microevolution is solid science, Microevolution has more in common with religion than science. It is a belief system looking for validation in science (and not been scientifically validated)

**Yes, but with nuance.** Among biologists, microevolution (small-scale changes in allele frequencies within populations, like antibiotic resistance or beak size shifts) and macroevolution (larger-scale patterns like speciation, major morphological changes, and diversification over geological time) are distinguished by **scale and observation level**. However, the scientific consensus is that they are **not separate mechanisms**—macroevolution is the cumulative result of microevolutionary processes (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow) over deep time. Sources like UC Berkeley's evolution site emphasize they rely on the same established processes. The "completely different things" view is more common in creationist arguments than in peer-reviewed evolutionary biology.

@NebraskaTyler @PaddyT0318 @aigkenham @grok Of course. I posted a link in this threat with a VERY long list of scientists saying so. Dr James Tour is a great resource for this. He is one of the most widely published and respected organic chemists in the world and he has written extensively on this subject

@PaddyT0318 @RickRational @aigkenham @grok @grok among scientists, are macro and micro evolution generally considered to be different?

I have done my research, years of it in fact and my objection to your definition of "drug" is simply that it is so broad, food would qualify. That is not the accepted definition. Still the debate is ultimately semantics as definitions don't change effects or mechanisms of action but rather are intended to describe them

@RickRational @elonmusk @maxmarchione @MatthewParrott @AskPerplexity Alright, we differ in opinions and that is okay. Do some research, I have done mine and it points out that indeed peptide are drugs, at least the ones you medically consume to create a specific reaction

Retatrutide phase 3 obesity trial just came out and the results are genuinely insane: - 28.3% bodyweight lost on 12mg over 80 weeks - 70.3 pounds on avg. or 31.9 kg - 45.3% of patients hit 30%+ weight loss (this is bariatric surgery territory) - 30.3% weight loss (85 lbs) at 104 weeks in higher-BMI patients - 65.3% of 12mg patients dropped below the obesity BMI threshold - 19% loss on 4mg over 80 weeks (47.2 lbs) with fewer dropouts than placebo (4.1% vs 4.9%) - significant drops in blood pressure, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, waist circumference, and hsCRP - no cardiac or liver signals Retatrutide is going to completely overshadow tirzepatide and semaglutide, and take the throne as the best-selling drug of all time.

It isn't. Even the scientfic "darwinists" got together in 2016 to discuss the need to craft a new theory to replace Darwinism. The science has had his postulates undefendable in academic circles. Just because you are uneducated about the current state of darwinism an ambiogenesis doesn’t mean the supporters of those ideas are not in a panic , because they are. Their theories have proven to be scientifically impossible but they have no new theory that they will accept because they are ideological materialists.

@RickRational @aigkenham If it's easily disproven, why has it remained so widely accepted by the global scientific community for so long?

That is pure nonsense. While gravity is material and real, it is not an argument that nothing exists beyond the material world. In contrast, evolution is imaginary and is the crutch used to support materialism. The first is science, observable and repeatable. The second has never been observed and is nor repeatable or reproducible outside the limited scope of microevolution which has been observed and reproduced.

@NebraskaTyler @PaddyT0318 @RickRational @aigkenham Evolution isn't materialism anymore than the theory of gravity is.

I have said macro and micro evolution are are entirely different....multiple times. Let's start with micro exists and macro doesn’t. Micro describes something occurring in nature and is observable. Macro has never been observed on any level in the 160 or so years since it was proposed.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok "digging myself deeper" and you're still talking about macro evolution being different without a source specifically saying it. Honestly yeah, wolf probably wasn't the best example.

Micro evolution stops when the species dies due to lack of genetic functionality or any other reason. Eventually microevolution creates so much loss of information the species will not be able to reproduce or it will develop a terminal mutation. It will never become a different species.

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok Now, I did still ask you a question. How many micro changes can we make to a single species before it's considered "illegal"?

@PaddyT0318 @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok No, evolution didn't create anything. Species existed before humans defined it. Just like math existed prior to man discovering and naming it. Defining terms is not inventing. It is describing what is. Whoever taught you this stuff should be changed with a crime

@RickRational @NebraskaTyler @aigkenham @grok Oh I'm well aware of the human created concept called species, but that's just it. It's a concept not a law of biology. Evolution doesn't give a shit what species you are. It will continue to give your species mutations until the end of time.