Quote:First, I think we have to clear something up:


Are you talking about macroevolution (which has fossil evidence, suggesting a common ancestor between man and ape as well as loads of other evidences)

 

or are you talking about Abiogenesis (The theory by which all living organisms evolved from a single lifeform)

 

I mean you seem to be conflating the two, but they're two very different things.  I'm less familiar with abiogenesis than I am macroevolution, but you do have evidence for abiogenesis that you can actually examine.  Results like the organic amino acids produced by the Miller-Urey experiment (combined with geological, chemical, and biological evidence).  I mean there's evidence to examine.  It's all there.  (If you're interested, you should probably look deeper into it.  Like I said, I'm not that familiar with it myself.  But you can't say "There's no evidence!" if you haven't really looked into it.  You've just assumed it doesn't exist.  I wonder how deeply you've actually looked into this if you've come to that conclusion.  I mean you even say you dont dislike the evidence, you just believe it doesn't exist.  But it definitely does, you have to actually read up on it though.  Whether it actually convinces you that abiogenesis is the best answer to origins of life on earth is another question altogether).  It's not accepted as fact, but it's definitely a legitimate theory worth discussing in a science classroom.   What evidence is there to examine for creationism?  What evidence could you even expect?  I mean I'm not dismissing creationism as a legitimate belief.  But that's what it is--a belief.  Not really a scientific theory.  At least not until there's evidence for it that can be examined.  Same goes for Ancient Astronaut Theory.  I mean that's the whole point of science.  Examining the evidence.  

 

Thank you for this information.  I'll look into the Miller-Urey experiment and do some research.  And yes, I did conflate the two, as most who believe in macroevolution seem to point to abiogenesis as their explanation for how life began, as Darwin himself did.

 

I should not have claimed that there is no evidence--rather, the arguments and evidence I have been exposed to previously leave me unconvinced.

 

Quote:Evolution is evolution. There is no micro and macro evolution. And you can observe your so called "macro evolution" over time. Gregory Mendel did it with the pea plant. Breeders do it with dogs and other animals all the time.

 

What you speak of is not macroevolution.  Macroevolution refers to one species group changing over time into another--i.e, dinosaurs into birds, apes into man, etc.  You're talking about genetics--changes within a species group.  The peas were still peas, and the dogs were still dogs.

---