Why is evolution touted as a proven fact even though as far as macroevolution goes, it has never been directly observed to be proven definitively. That's not science, that's faith. That's a religion. Atheism is a religion.
>>18588106Do you look identical to your father?
>>18588112no, but that's devolution
>>18588106>macroevolutionthis term is itself a concession. If you concede "micro"evolution, then you concede evolution. Macroevolution is just an endless series of microevolutions occurring in an organism.
>>18588173>Macroevolution is just an endless series of microevolutions occurring in an organism....aaaaaaaaaaand that's faith, not science
>>18588106it has been observed
>>18588106It's a hierarchy of motes and baileys. You can observe microorganisms evolving - i.e. evolution is a fact. You can deduce that small changes will accumulate and lead to significant changes, over time spans too great for humans to directly track - i.e. "macro"-evolution is, if not a fact, then at least a very compelling forecast. The idea that you evolved out of a fish - we call that evolution. And as we've established, evolution (including "macro"-evolution) is a fact. Yes, sub-130-IQs actually fall for this tactic.
