Evolution Singlehandedly Debunks Christian Mythology

Ok, I'm glad we at least agree on micro evolution and have a base line to start with. If you believe in micro evolution, You have no reason not to believe in macro evolution, Because they are both "evolution". Macro evolution is simply micro evolution with a time multiplier. The changes over a period of time (those periods can vary) will often, Not always, Lead to changes. Examples of this are vestigial developments, Which are relics of previous evolutionary changes. One example of a vestigial development is the Laryngeal Nerve in a Giraffe's neck. Not all vestigial developments are entirely useless, Some can be repurposed, Such as the Appendix. Other examples of vestiges are sinuses, Wisdom teeth, Coccyx (tailbone), Ears, Tonsils, Male nipples and the plica semilunaris. Either way, These are remnants of our transitional history and they can be correlated to our ancestry through the field of morphology. When I was explaining that fossils are extremely rare, I was in no way saying fossils don't exist. There are plenty of transitional fossils available. I was simply explaining how rare it is for a fossil to actually form. In our human ancestry, You can see the size of the brain increase with the evolutionary steps until it becomes indistinguishable from our current homo sapien species. A good example of human transitional fossils can be found at the Smithsonian Museum. Below is a link to the online page. http://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils The issues with Creationism and the reason it cannot be compatible with evolution is as follows: 1) There is no micro/macro evolution, There is just evolution. The distinction between the two is mostly conceptual. You cannot reject one and accept the other, Scientifically, As one leads to the other. 2) There was never only one man and women of our homo sapien species, Which renders the Adam and Eve story false. At the point we speciated in our ancestry, Our species was approximately 2-3 thousand in volume. 3) Creationism requires "kinds", Or archetypes, Which were created by God, For example, Dog, As you mentioned. This would mean all dogs descended from that common Dog ancestor, And the original Dog was not a descendant of something else, Because it was made by God uniquely. This is the creationism proposition, But this is simply not what we find. A dog and a wolf have a common ancestor, Ancient wolves, For example, Which has a common ancestor, Which has a common ancestor, Etc. This ancestry trickles back throughout the phylogenetic tree of life. Like us, Dogs are related to trees, If you go back far enough. This entirely destroys the notion of archetypes and creationism and this is supported heavily by genomic sequencing. In fact, Scientists thought dogs were descendants of wolves, Until recently, Due to genetic sequencing, They realized they were wrong. I am not trying to shift any burden of proof to you, You are just dodging my question. The proof IS what I said - genetics. I was asking you to refute it. Genetics is a very solid foundation of evolution, And to disprove evolution or reject the claim of genetics, You would need to provide evidence or a reason why it's wrong. I already said that changes in allele frequencies is a large driving force of evolutionary change. Mutations can cause change as well, But they are not as impacting. Do you have anything to refute that or not? You can't ask me for evidence, Then ignore it when I provide it and say I'm switching the burden of proof to you because you're forced to refute the evidence. The Cambrian explosion is not a defense against evolution, As I already explained earlier. I am still not seeing the point you're trying to make here. You said, "those won't create this complexity even in 20 million years", Can you show me why? You said "I don't think that you have presented enough evidence for evolution in order to win this debate. My position is, "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that evolution is true. " The evidence would have to be overwhelming, Right now, It's just not. " I am trying hard not to overwhelm you with evidence and scatter this debate into a discussion on 20 fronts, Since we only have a few rounds. I've done this in the past and it got nowhere. There are so many fields of science that corroborate evolution, But, I want this to discussion to actually get somewhere, So I'm trying to keep it contained to a few points. Since genetics is the strongest argument for evolution, I'm focusing on that for now. Do you have a rebuttal for genetics?