Can anyone refute this?

if i disembowel a man and put eveything in a bag, no way a human will be created from that stuff.
evolution BTFO

> Veeky Forums
> still believing the modern evolutionary synthesis
> In 2011 + 7
cosmicfingerprints.com/evolution/
Read it and weep, brainlets.

Please, use stronger bait next time.

We have evidence of one species diverging so much that it is considered a new species. Scientists have demonstrated this with bacteria in a lab. Because bacteria reproduce so quickly, they are useful for seeing evolution in action.

How come when I break an egg and eat it I don't shit out a chicken? Checkmate.

>one species morphing into another

That's a really nice video mate, thanks for posting it

Oh great it's another evolution denial thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

Micro evolution is not the same as macro evolution. To this day we do not have a single piece of evidence that supports macro evolution.

What is the difference between micro and macro evolution?

time

micro is short term, macro is long term. Basically the exact same process

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Microevolution is changes in genetic information, macroevolution is changes in phenotype. All we have are examples of small genetic changes. Not once have we ever seen a mutation that creates a distinct new species. In fact the ONLY changes we've ever observed are negative ones, not one change that makes an organism more "fit" for it's environment has ever been observed. Simply put evolution is a completely false theory.

youtube.com/watch?v=8jvZSosYh4M

>macroevolution is changes in phenotype
>In fact the ONLY changes we've ever observed are negative ones
So we have observed "macroevolution" then. You just contradicted yourself.

And here's a positive change in phenotype:

youtu.be/plVk4NVIUh8

You lose.

>You lose.
You clearly didn't watch the video I posted which debunks everything you said.

Of course a single mutation isn't going to fucking result in a new species. That isn't what macroevolution is. And while most mutations are negative, there are also beneficial ones. You are absolutely full of shit.

>And while most mutations are negative, there are also beneficial ones. You are absolutely full of shit.
Tell me if I gave you a dollar and you handed back two dollars when would you expect to become a millionaire? By your own admission every beneficial mutation has many negative ones. One step forward, two steps back. Doesn't sound like a system that can produce extremely complex organisms to me.

So it debunked your contradictory arguments? Make up your mind retard.

>a change in phenotype has never been observed
>only negative changes in phenotype have been observed
So which of your claims are you saying is false?

natural selection elements the weak, mutations occur but only beneficial/neutral traits will tend to accumulate and survive over time