Evolution. What is meant by "macro-" and "micro-" and mistaken interpretations....

[Scott Mayers]

There is a common use of these terms by some (even by some with degrees!) to what is meant by "micro-" versus "macro-" evolution. I understand that in the context of those arguing that the confusion is about interpreting that "macro-" is about the ultimate 'long-term' explanation of biological origins from CHEMISTRY all the way through to Natural Selection (Darwins' theory).

"Macro-" only describes the 'long-term' evolution about Natural Selection that is only about scope. Because today evolution IS accepted and has become the foundation of GENETICS, they've separated the classes of evolutionary study based on HOW they study it. In part both views 'agree' and not all scientists would use such terms for the sake of such confusion. 

The religious views against evolution are often about the present acceptance of genetics but with a mysterious interpretation of what came BEFORE Natural Selection could take place. After all, Natural Selection by Darwin spoke most specifically about SEXUAL creatures which require two types, what we call "male" and "female". So the question is about interpreting whether Natural Selection specifically explains the origins long ago PRIOR to distinct sexes. How can one treat some theory as correct if it cannot COMPLETELY explain origins from some single source?

"Evolution" by Darwin, though, IS a theory that is now sufficiently 'closed' upon genetics, regardless of any ignorance of evolution PRIOR to sexual origins. This is confusing by many biologists who hear this same confusion by some other 'scientists', often not in the direct field of biology. Chemists, as with most different areas of science, do not teach absolutely everything of all sciences because it is now TOO much for anyone to learn without being practical about the length of a University degree. "Natural Selection" IS essential to even ACCEPT any genetic theory. How can one NOT interpret genetics today without Natural Selection is odd. Because Darwin is the one who DID originate the specific theory of Natural Selection, it is even contradictory for any biologist to assert even a 'faith' in genetics without its foundations of ESSENTIAL theory.

The chemists or non-biologists who support skepticism of Darwin is interpreted correctly as being religious because they don't (or won't) interpret the meaning of Darwin's role in Evolutionary theory as being most specifically about the "micro-" part of their interpretation. By using "macro-" to refer to Natural Selection as well, they hope to disguise their intent to be skeptical about the chemical origins when this is NOT even in the range of Natural Evolution. That Darwin followed up with his "Decent of Man" which proposed humans as being evolved without describing HOW evolution could transgress changes from a single source (like one man or woman), let alone one single-celled organism to many-celled complex ones makes the arguments appear faulty. 

What is purposely being ignored is that if or where biology speak of "Macro-evolution", it would have to be only about species already with sexual factors that deal with Natural Selection. But this is not clear when even many scientist literally use terms that speak of a single root of all species, including humans.

 

So, to be clearer, separate the distinction of origins prior to Sexual reproduction as about the non-biological origins. Biologists require leaving this to chemistry WITH a background inclusion of Carbon-based expertise: "Organic Chemistry", and those that link the 'organic' forms to biology as "Biochemistry". They are related but still operate from different approaches. There ARE theories that deal with the transitions of carbon-based chemistry to bio-chemistry. While these TOO have 'evolutionary' factors involved, they go beyond what Darwin's theory could given his time and capacity. "Macro-evolution" is at best a Natural Selection based area that deals with Geologists and Archaeology as a sub-profession related to this because they have to interpret what past creatures were based on fossils rather than present genetics. But even genetics play a role today when they interpret the "junk DNA" that helps link animals together. Those that work in relating genetic 'heritages' play a role in this link when they keep databases of DNA of various origins. So these too act as more direct 'micro-' as well as 'macro-' evolutionary studies.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[?Impact]

16 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

After all, Natural Selection by Darwin spoke most specifically about SEXUAL creatures which require two types, what we call "male" and "female". So the question is about interpreting whether Natural Selection specifically explains the origins long ago PRIOR to distinct sexes.

I'm not sure I agree with that, natural selection also applies to asexual reproduction but it happens at a much slower pace in terms of number of generations but most asexual organisms reproduce much faster so the net result is comparable. Yes, with recombining the best of a mutation will tend to move forward within the population and without we have the entire mutated genome (ie. one that adapts to the environment) overtaking the population. When you consider however that high order species like mammals have a reproduction time measure in years and low order species like single cell organisms have a reproduction time measure in minutes, you have a ratio of around 1:250,000 difference. Another way to compare that is the number of generations of a single cell organism in 3-4 years would take man a million years to accomplish. I don't think we have enough detailed understanding to make an empirical comparison but it is entirely possible that the net effect is similar. It is also interesting that most high order organisms that can reproduce asexually, also reproduce sexually as well.

[betsy]

On 1/29/2018 at 3:14 AM, Scott Mayers said:

There is a common use of these terms by some (even by some with degrees!) to what is meant by "micro-" versus "macro-" evolution. I understand that in the context of those arguing that the confusion is about interpreting that "macro-" is about the ultimate 'long-term' explanation of biological origins from CHEMISTRY all the way through to Natural Selection (Darwins' theory).

"Macro-" only describes the 'long-term' evolution about Natural Selection that is only about scope. Because today evolution IS accepted and has become the foundation of GENETICS, they've separated the classes of evolutionary study based on HOW they study it. In part both views 'agree' and not all scientists would use such terms for the sake of such confusion. 

The religious views against evolution are often about the present acceptance of genetics but with a mysterious interpretation of what came BEFORE Natural Selection could take place. After all, Natural Selection by Darwin spoke most specifically about SEXUAL creatures which require two types, what we call "male" and "female". So the question is about interpreting whether Natural Selection specifically explains the origins long ago PRIOR to distinct sexes. How can one treat some theory as correct if it cannot COMPLETELY explain origins from some single source?

"Evolution" by Darwin, though, IS a theory that is now sufficiently 'closed' upon genetics, regardless of any ignorance of evolution PRIOR to sexual origins. This is confusing by many biologists who hear this same confusion by some other 'scientists', often not in the direct field of biology. Chemists, as with most different areas of science, do not teach absolutely everything of all sciences because it is now TOO much for anyone to learn without being practical about the length of a University degree. "Natural Selection" IS essential to even ACCEPT any genetic theory. How can one NOT interpret genetics today without Natural Selection is odd. Because Darwin is the one who DID originate the specific theory of Natural Selection, it is even contradictory for any biologist to assert even a 'faith' in genetics without its foundations of ESSENTIAL theory.

The chemists or non-biologists who support skepticism of Darwin is interpreted correctly as being religious because they don't (or won't) interpret the meaning of Darwin's role in Evolutionary theory as being most specifically about the "micro-" part of their interpretation. By using "macro-" to refer to Natural Selection as well, they hope to disguise their intent to be skeptical about the chemical origins when this is NOT even in the range of Natural Evolution. That Darwin followed up with his "Decent of Man" which proposed humans as being evolved without describing HOW evolution could transgress changes from a single source (like one man or woman), let alone one single-celled organism to many-celled complex ones makes the arguments appear faulty. 

What is purposely being ignored is that if or where biology speak of "Macro-evolution", it would have to be only about species already with sexual factors that deal with Natural Selection. But this is not clear when even many scientist literally use terms that speak of a single root of all species, including humans.

 

So, to be clearer, separate the distinction of origins prior to Sexual reproduction as about the non-biological origins. Biologists require leaving this to chemistry WITH a background inclusion of Carbon-based expertise: "Organic Chemistry", and those that link the 'organic' forms to biology as "Biochemistry". They are related but still operate from different approaches. There ARE theories that deal with the transitions of carbon-based chemistry to bio-chemistry. While these TOO have 'evolutionary' factors involved, they go beyond what Darwin's theory could given his time and capacity. "Macro-evolution" is at best a Natural Selection based area that deals with Geologists and Archaeology as a sub-profession related to this because they have to interpret what past creatures were based on fossils rather than present genetics. But even genetics play a role today when they interpret the "junk DNA" that helps link animals together. Those that work in relating genetic 'heritages' play a role in this link when they keep databases of DNA of various origins. So these too act as more direct 'micro-' as well as 'macro-' evolutionary studies.

 

Here, from a university.......the difference between the two in a nutshell:

 

Quote

 

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population),

while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.

 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

 

Speaking for myself - as a religious - I believe in micro evolution.  But, not macro. 

 

There is no evidence for macro-evolution.  Nada.  Not a single one!

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

How do YOU define "species", Betsy? 

The page you link to this article is unfound: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

From his Wikipedia Entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour]

[Scott Mayers]

I encourage James Tour's efforts in Nanotech but his concern is precisely what I mentioned above, Betsy. He's speaking about what comes prior to the first cells and if he's being sincere, this is NOT "macro-evolution". I'll have to check out the original New York Times on this. 

This is what the signing of the Discovery Institute is claiming:

Quote

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The article also states the signers have an evangelical Christian background AND only 1/4 of them are even potential 'scientists' relevant to the topic. I already mentioned above that it is impossible to teach everything in all fields for practical limitations. There is also some insincerity here by mentioning "Darwininan theory" versus "evolution". Why Darwin is being picked on requires me determining what you KNOW of what Darwins' theory states. Can you explain what you think it means? Define you understanding of 'specie' in your own understanding if you can. (we don't always share the same specific meanings)

Edited January 31, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

How do YOU define "species", Betsy? 

The page you link to this article is unfound: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf 

[/quote]

 

How do you define species, Scott.

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

The page you link to this article is unfound: http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf 

Read the links that I gave here!   The one from Berkley and the one from Tour. 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

From his Wikipedia Entry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour]

 

And????

What about it?  What are you saying?

Edited January 31, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I encourage James Tour's efforts in Nanotech but his concern is precisely what I mentioned above, Betsy. He's speaking about what comes prior to the first cells and if he's being sincere, this is NOT "macro-evolution". I'll have to check out the original New York Times on this. 

This is what the signing of the Discovery Institute is claiming:

The article also states the signers have an evangelical Christian background AND only 1/4 of them are even potential 'scientists' relevant to the topic. I already mentioned above that it is impossible to teach everything in all fields for practical limitations. There is also some insincerity here by mentioning "Darwininan theory" versus "evolution". Why Darwin is being picked on requires me determining what you KNOW of what Darwins' theory states. Can you explain what you think it means? Define you understanding of 'specie' in your own understanding if you can. (we don't always share the same specific meanings)

Why the New Tork Times?  Why don't you go directly to the source - to James Tour's blog!  Here......

 

JAMES TOUR

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I encourage James Tour's efforts in Nanotech but his concern is precisely what I mentioned above, Betsy. He's speaking about what comes prior to the first cells and if he's being sincere, this is NOT "macro-evolution". I'll have to check out the original New York Times on this. 

This is what the signing of the Discovery Institute is claiming:

The article also states the signers have an evangelical Christian background AND only 1/4 of them are even potential 'scientists' relevant to the topic. I already mentioned above that it is impossible to teach everything in all fields for practical limitations. There is also some insincerity here by mentioning "Darwininan theory" versus "evolution". Why Darwin is being picked on requires me determining what you KNOW of what Darwins' theory states. Can you explain what you think it means? Define you understanding of 'specie' in your own understanding if you can. (we don't always share the same specific meanings)

Even if  ALL OF THEM ARE EVANGELISTS - so what?   If their concerns are valid,  that's what count!

You're saying you'll reject something valid just because the findings come from a group that you're opposed to?  See?  Your bias is worn on your sleeves. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

@ Betsy

 The claims of these dissenters are asserting 'doubt' by the cosigning 'scientists' precisely for the authority of "science" you grant as virtuous. But if you are NOT a 'scientist' yourself, what reason do you personally have that justifies BELIEVING in these authorities over the Natural Selection? I can't determine that you even know WHAT Darwin's theory is and so need to know what you understand of the theory FIRST.

What appears distinctively different between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that you disagree with is time. 

 If you agree that evolution works to make a small difference, what is problematic about adding up many such small differences through time that completely alter what one is over millions of years? 

[betsy]

20 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

@ Betsy

 The claims of these dissenters are asserting 'doubt' by the cosigning 'scientists' precisely for the authority of "science" you grant as virtuous. But if you are NOT a 'scientist' yourself, what reason do you personally have that justifies BELIEVING in these authorities over the Natural Selection? I can't determine that you even know WHAT Darwin's theory is and so need to know what you understand of the theory FIRST.

What appears distinctively different between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that you disagree with is time. 

 If you agree that evolution works to make a small difference, what is problematic about adding up many such small differences through time that completely alter what one is over millions of years? 

 

I should  be the one asking you the  question:  if you're not a scientist yourself what reason do you personally have that justifies NOT BELIEVING what they say?

 

I do have reasons to believe James Tour.  Why? 

Because he's PUBLICLY thrown the gauntlet at the whole science community to explain to him about macro evolution!  He practically challenged everyone! 

 

Quote

 

Therefore, I do not understand the mechanisms needed to change body plans or the mechanisms along the descent pathway between the australopithecine brain and modern human brains if we were indeed commonly descended as predicted by the theory of universal common descent. Nobody else understands the mechanisms either. Nobody.

But I am saying it publicly, hence the arousal of some toward my open comments of skepticism.

Recall, evolution is both about the mechanism by which change occurs over time, and the theory of universal common descent. But the mechanisms are unknown and the theory of universal common descent is confronted by issues of uncommonness through ENCODE and orphan gene research.

And each year the evidence for uncommonness is escalating.

 

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

 

If James Tour is wrong, if he's not confident in what he stated - why would he risk his reputation to challenge the WHOLE SCIENCE COMMUNITY?  If James Tour is wrong, and if he hasn't a valid point - why isn't anyone rising up to that challenge?  Why hasn't anyone come forward to correct him?

Edited February 1, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

On 29/01/2018 at 6:38 PM, ?Impact said:

I'm not sure I agree with that, natural selection also applies to asexual reproduction but it happens at a much slower pace in terms of number of generations but most asexual organisms reproduce much faster so the net result is comparable. Yes, with recombining the best of a mutation will tend to move forward within the population and without we have the entire mutated genome (ie. one that adapts to the environment) overtaking the population. When you consider however that high order species like mammals have a reproduction time measure in years and low order species like single cell organisms have a reproduction time measure in minutes, you have a ratio of around 1:250,000 difference. Another way to compare that is the number of generations of a single cell organism in 3-4 years would take man a million years to accomplish. I don't think we have enough detailed understanding to make an empirical comparison but it is entirely possible that the net effect is similar. It is also interesting that most high order organisms that can reproduce asexually, also reproduce sexually as well.

This is too far beyond what Darwin alone suggested. You are speaking of 'evolution theory' in general NOW. What the proponents against Darwin's theory are doing is to question whether even sexual evolution is valid at great distances. However, if you read up on some of these scientists, like Michael Behe, they would point to questioning complexity of the cell to which they ask how the very first cell could come about at all from no cell without all its components in tact. This is NOT even in Darwin's domain. It's evolution of chemistry to biology which is too specifically narrow for Darwin's concern.

They want to discredit the initial authority as though he claimed more than he had. 

 

 

[betsy]

22 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

@ Betsy

 

 If you agree that evolution works to make a small difference, what is problematic about adding up many such small differences through time that completely alter what one is over millions of years? 

Because there is no evidence!  It's all suppositions and gross extrapolations!

 

Btw, since you keep bringing up the religious -  let's be clear about something here: 

Unlike atheists.........Christians can follow where the evidence leads. 

 

If you think evolution will negate Christianity - you're wrong.

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

I should  be the one asking you the  question:  if you're not a scientist yourself what reason do you personally have that justifies NOT BELIEVING what they say?

If YOU AND I were both NOT scientists, and there is a difference between which views we favor of them, then let's agree here to leave the 'authorities' out of the question. We could both be biased, right? 

[betsy]

11 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

If YOU AND I were both NOT scientists, and there is a difference between which views we favor of them, then let's agree here to leave the 'authorities' out of the question. We could both be biased, right? 

What's bias got to do with pointing to a source like James Tour?   Either you can refute him, or not!

 

Why should we leave out the authority that knows about it?  You gotta be kidding, right?

  What's the point of two ignorant like you and I,  discussing something we both don't fully understand?  What is this?  A game of pretend?  We'll bs each other?

Uh-uh.  Count me out.  I don't have the time to waste on such childish and pointless exercise.

 

  I give you an authority on the subject (James Tour) - go find yourself an authority to  refute him!

 

get back to me when you've found one..........if you can find anyone.

Edited February 1, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Because there is no evidence!  It's all suppositions and gross extrapolations!

 

Btw, since you keep bringing up the religious -  let's be clear about something here: 

Unlike atheists.........Christians can follow where the evidence leads. 

 

If you think evolution will negate Christianity - you're wrong.

How many straws does it take to break a camel's back?

You are falsely interpreting that the question of degree from "micro-" to "macro-" as incomparable. IF the scientists defining the classes "Macro" and "Micro" are Darwinian theorists, and they assert the distinction as only about degree, you require explaining HOW you go against their own 'definition'?

This is like if you named your kid "Michaelizicapitooha" and then I come along and assert that this is not possible because no one ever had nor would ever name their kid this. While I may be possibly be correct by some standard, I am not the one in 'authority' naming your child. So unless I can prove that you actually named him or her something else and are thus lying, you would not burdened to disprove anything. 

[betsy]

49 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

@ Betsy

 The claims of these dissenters are asserting 'doubt' by the cosigning 'scientists' precisely for the authority of "science" you grant as virtuous. But if you are NOT a 'scientist' yourself, what reason do you personally have that justifies BELIEVING in these authorities over the Natural Selection? I can't determine that you even know WHAT Darwin's theory is and so need to know what you understand of the theory FIRST.

What appears distinctively different between "Macro-evolution" and "Micro-evolution" that you disagree with is time. 

 If you agree that evolution works to make a small difference, what is problematic about adding up many such small differences through time that completely alter what one is over millions of years? 

 

Btw.....

James Tour wasn't content to issue the challenge just in his blog, you know.  He wrote an open letter to his colleagues.  It was published on Inference.  Here's an excerpt:

 

 

Quote

 

An Open Letter to My Colleagues

James Tour

 

Mes frères, mes semblables, with these complexities in mind, how can we build the microsystem of a simple cell? Would we be able to build even the lipid bilayers? These diminutive cellular microsystems—which are, in turn, composed of thousands of nanosystems—are beyond our comprehension. Yet we are led to believe that 3.8 billion years ago the requisite compounds could be found in some cave, or undersea vent, and somehow or other they assembled themselves into the first cell.

 

Could time really have worked such magic?

 

 

We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense.

 

http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

 

 

That's a powerful statement!

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

How many straws does it take to break a camel's back?

You are falsely interpreting that the question of degree from "micro-" to "macro-" as incomparable. IF the scientists defining the classes "Macro" and "Micro" are Darwinian theorists, and they assert the distinction as only about degree, you require explaining HOW you go against their own 'definition'?

This is like if you named your kid "Michaelizicapitooha" and then I come along and assert that this is not possible because no one ever had nor would ever name their kid this. While I may be possibly be correct by some standard, I am not the one in 'authority' naming your child. So unless I can prove that you actually named him or her something else and are thus lying, you would not burdened to disprove anything. 

Go get yourself an authority on the subject, Scott.   Find your champion.

You and I "discussing" science would be like two toddlers arguing about the economy.

Edited February 1, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

What's bias got to do with pointing to a source like James Tour?   Either you can refute him, or not!

 

Why should we leave out the authority that knows about it?  You gotta be kidding, right?

  What's the point of two ignorant like you and I,  discussing something we both don't fully understand?  What is this?  A game of pretend?  We'll bs each other?

Uh-uh.  Count me out.  I don't have the time to waste on such childish and pointless exercise.

 

  I give you an authority on the subject (James Tour) - go find yourself an authority to  refute him!

 

get back to me when you've found one..........if you can find anyone.

I've read and clearly understand Darwin's "On the origins of the Species" and am confident on evolutionary theory in general. AND I can defend this with confidence. If you felt that you had to go to the bathroom to pee would you require outside authority to determine whether you are actually needing to go? 

[Scott Mayers]

47 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Btw.....

James Tour wasn't content to issue the challenge just in his blog, you know.  He wrote an open letter to his colleagues.  It was published on Inference.  Here's an excerpt:

 

 

http://inference-review.com/article/an-open-letter-to-my-colleagues

 

 

That's a powerful statement!

 

 

Thank you....This definitively proves that he's NOT discussing "macro-evolution". He's asking, as Michael Behe did, whether the cell can be reducible to anything simpler than the whole. He will favor the BELIEF that there is NO possible way for any simpler stages of 'components' that make up a cell to function with the complexity needed. So he's interpreting this like one might define the first car ever made: How can the car operate as a 'car' if it lacks even one MAJOR component, like an engine? He's defending the view that at some point in the past, there is a fixed defining limit to which you can reduce the LOGIC needed to make a cell.

But WAIT: even if he was possibly 'correct', how does Darwin relate to this? You are imposing something about his theory that is outside of his range. He never defended THAT anything evolved chemically from non-organic matter to become a cell by selection. This proves that there is something 'fishy' about the intent to be 'scientific' here. 

If when you felt you had to go to the bathroom, this would be like your mommy saying that she herself doesn't need to go, so neither do you. How does HER interpretation about your bladder's sensation grant her even any RELEVANT rationale for the truth about you? If your mother actually HAD behaved this way, would you NOT be suspicious of her in some way? Would you grant her the faith because she's had a bladder longer than you?

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Said "irreducible" when I meant "reducible"

[betsy]

44 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Thank you....This definitively proves that he's NOT discussing "macro-evolution".

 

Hello?  Did you read the whole thing? 

 

Find someone to refute Tour, Scott.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

Hello?  Did you read the whole thing? 

 

Find someone to refute Tour, Scott.

 

 

You are the one holding a belief of these people. Do you not KNOW yourself what they are saying?

I think you need an investment in time to learn WHAT 'evolution' is prior to dismissing it. I can help but believe that you are preferring to distract rather than learn. 

"Evolution" [from 'eve-' (yes, that Eve) meaning after, what follows, ever; (s)olute or (allude)] is that which comes about from gradual change as opposed to sudden magical or mysterious ones. Ever-changing.

You believe (or want to believe) that we were created suddenly in God's power to do so even if you cannot present evidence of this in modern times. (You cannot replicate the actual physics, chemistry, or biology to prove SUDDEN generation of living things) But you contest the theories of gradual change by those who also assert they are skeptical of 'gradual change' AND who hold your beliefs in sudden spontaneous generated beings by magical powers of God. [yes/no?]

 

[betsy]

25 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are the one holding a belief of these people. Do you not KNOW yourself what they are saying?

I think you need an investment in time to learn WHAT 'evolution' is prior to dismissing it. I can help but believe that you are preferring to distract rather than learn. 

"Evolution" [from 'eve-' (yes, that Eve) meaning after, what follows, ever; (s)olute or (allude)] is that which comes about from gradual change as opposed to sudden magical or mysterious ones. Ever-changing.

You believe (or want to believe) that we were created suddenly in God's power to do so even if you cannot present evidence of this in modern times. (You cannot replicate the actual physics, chemistry, or biology to prove SUDDEN generation of living things) But you contest the theories of gradual change by those who also assert they are skeptical of 'gradual change' AND who hold your beliefs in sudden spontaneous generated beings by magical powers of God. [yes/no?]

 

Find someone to refute Tour, Scott.