Evolution doesn't real

I keep seeing arguments on this board for natural evolution falsely equivocating micro and macro evolution by positing that one necessarily follows from the other. This is obviously false. Just because two words share the same root word doesn't mean one follows from the other. Microevolution has only to do with phenotypical expression of existent genotypes. Macroevolution has to do with addition of genotypes. Some try to argue that reorganization of existent base pairs constitutes addition of genotypes, but this false, as any new genotype from an old genotype also constitutes a loss of a genotype. A true addition of genes necessitates more genes than there were before and a larger genome. To make this concept simple for you, a genotype consisting of 1 billion base pairs can't be rearranged to make 2 billion base pairs. There are mutations that add base pairs, but the point is that macroevolution doesn't follow from microevolution.

There's also the argument that "junk DNA" is evidence of evolution. There is no such thing. "Junk DNA" is functional. You can research this for yourself, but try not just to read your favorite pro-atheism websites. Additionally, even if there were junk DNA existent in "pre-evolved" ancestors, this would not be implicative of evolution. One could try to assert that it's "evidence," but that seems to be a word used often in trying to assert one's hypothesis is correct while disregarding one's burden of proof. Evidence is only evidence if probability of truth can be explicitly quantified from it, else it is just something people interpret in such a way that makes them "right," regardless of if they have a position in a scientific or any field.
>But science! hurrr
Scientists are people too, some of who want as badly as any atheist for God not to exist.
In fact, there are plenty of scientists who question evolution, but they're simply defined as being wrong. Afterall, why take seriously a "pseudoscientist"?
>b-but [argumentum ad populum]

People also try to cite similarities between physiology, morphology, and sequences of DNA between life forms. Structures exist as they do simply because it is physically necessary for function. Function is only obtainable via a set number of structures, therefore there will be similarities in the structure of similarly functioning things. Therefore similarities also don't serve as proof of evolution.
>But it's evidence!
See above.

I'm not going to argue in this thread because even when I do well or 'win', communication with stubborn, borderline delusional atheists drives me to drink, and I'm an alcoholic who's trying to quit drinking.

I just wanted to post this because someone who doesn't already might actually question evolution, rather than having the typical knee jerk reaction of "No! No! No! That can't be right! Smart people and atheists I admire said you're wrong!" I also want to be clear that I'm not sure macroevolution isn't real. But it seems like another tool atheists use to try to convince people naive enough to believe in the false dichotomy of "It's either God or evolution," that God isn't real. He is.

>magical sky daddy hurr durr durr
Just look at the butthurt in people who pose this straw man - so offended by someone who supposedly doesn't exist.
>No, what I'm offended by is [insert rationalization]

No one cares about your autism

Vestigial and Homologous structures

>doesn't real

American education sage

Why hasn't my dog turned into a whale yet? Is he sick?

first it turns into a tiger, than rat then whale.

>Evolution doesn't real
You mean
>Evolution isn't real
Get a better english teacher, OP

Did you fall asleep while watching always sunny in philadelphia?

>doesn't
>sexual reproduction does real, even though your sexual reproductive organs might not.

oh.

Education doesn't real

And how can we test any of your propositions? What would falsify them?

>Just because two words share the same root word doesn't mean one follows from the other
literally retard tier. kys

Yeah I guess if you have yellow and brown trees and you kill all the yellow ones nothing happens.

>scientists can be wrong because they badly wish there was no god!
>proceed to base all your argumentation on your wish for God to eixist

kek

this

>Swedish education
it actually goes dog-->hippo-->nuclear submarine-->whale

believing in evolution is proof people aren't smart as they think they are. No critical though. no actual intelligence. The creator of the (theory) himself confessed on his death bed it was a sham and that creation is truth.

Even the modern dawarin, dawkins, admits intelligent design. Yet people still cling to evolution SOLEY for the fact they were brainwashed since children.

I personally do not believe in evolutionary theory. I am not a creationist either. I just think we have yet to find a proper theory to fit.
Because of this I have actually read the origin of species. Which has a lot about pigeons and is actually quite a good explanation and not nearly as preachy as evolutionist now.
The other book I read was the selfish gene. Which is bollocks in my opinion but as this is Sup Forums and you love memes I am sure most would like this explanation.

The truth is that when anyone gets to stuck in one type of thought they tend to ignore new evidence and this dismissal is detrimental to any new theory that may come along.

my old dog took a turn for the worst and now he's a platypus. No idea how that happened! (and neither do any evolutionists!! )