Why should I believe in macro-evolution even though it is not observable anywhere else in our solar system?

your theory is based on a false premise that life has not evolved elsewhere. its an almost certainty that it has

>Why should I believe in macro-evolution even though it is not observable anywhere else in our solar system?

Why should I believe in internal combustion engines even though they are not observable anywhere else in the Solar System?

See? I can name any number of phenomena here on Earth that we have not detected anywhere else. That doesn't mean we should stop believing in them entirely.

>if complex life forms can evolve from simple ones, and simple ones from single celled organisms

Life evolves in whatever direction natural selection pressures force it to evolve in. There is no principle stating that a simple life form cannot likewise evolve from a complex one, or that a multicellular organism can evolve back into a single-celled organism.

>If evolution was a reality, wouldn't something evolve on Mars? NASA says the planet's dirt and atmosphere are sterile, but if evolution were true, over the course of millions of years wouldn't something have adapted to survive - just as life has adapted to survive in the harshest climes on Earth?

You have to keep in mind that before life can evolve and adapt to an environment, it has to start somewhere. Life on Earth started somewhere, and only became as ubiquitous as it is now as a result of different species finding themselves suited to different environments and then adapting to better fit their environments. Mars is simply not nearly as well suited to life forms developing in the first place as the Earth is. It has a smaller surface area, a much thinner atmosphere, very low temperatures at the surface, and virtually no potential for liquid water to exist on the surface for any great length of time. Furthermore, its interior is colder than that of the Earth and so it has no active plate tectonics and thus no carbon cycle the way the Earth does. It is not a very good place for life to begin.

>but this theory of evolution thing is hard for me to swallow, partly because I feel I have to take so much of it on faith.

You don't have to take it on faith. Have you heard of these things called 'fossils'? Not to mention microorganisms becoming resistant to medical treatments, along with the spread of variations in genotypes and phenotypes among all organisms, which has absolutely no decent explanation from a creationist perspective.

>you can blast me if you want but please don't call me a creationist or an ID'er!!!

We don't need to. You already showed yourself up as a creationist simply by using the term 'macroevolution' as if there were actually anything for it to describe. Those of us who accept evolutionary theory and understand it are already aware that no distinction between 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' actually exists.

You don't have to take any of it on faith if you don't want to. If you did the research and understood the information, you wouldn't have to just assume that what scientists tell us is true.

The rest of the planets in our solar system are not suitable for carbon based life forms. The lack of water alone is enough to prevent similar life from evolving. Mars would be the only one close enough in composition to be able to sustain life, but because it is to far away from the sun, it is unable to stay warm enough.

Just because Richard Dawkins is famous doesn't mean that he's the ultimate authority on evolution. I'm sure if you did the research, you'd find other (less arrogant) scientists proclaiming the veracity of evolution.

it's not observable anywhere else in our solar system, as we have yet to even find life elsewhere in the solar system!

The theory of evolution is well supported by evidence, though there are still some gaps. As there are in all branches of science, which is why scientists still have jobs! In science, personality is irrelevent - it's only the evidence and interpretation that matters. It doesn't matter that Richard Dawkins is combative or Steve Jones uses humour - that's just a way of communicating to the masses. Their science is what matters, and should be judged independently of the people behind it.

We can't rule out life in the solar system, and Jupiter's moon Europa is the prime candidate due to its potentially vast oceans underneath the ice. However, we still have to send probes to do the exploration, as no doubt we will when budgets allow it. Mars has not been ruled out, but is thought unlikely to have life presently. Again, exploration is needed.

We describe earth as being in the 'goldilocks zone', where conditions are just right for life as we know it. There is liquid water, essential for life, as well as all sorts of mineral- and hydrocarbon-based nutrients. The temperature due to solar radiation is just right, and the earth's magnetic field does much to protect us from cosmic radiation.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a different type of life couldn't exist in very different conditions, but as we have yet to find any, such possibilities as still just speculation.

The recent Kepler mission has been launched to search for earth-sized exoplanets in the goldilocks zones of other stars.

Science hasnt yet proven that their is life on Mars, but it still could. There is a theory that Mars once was able to support life. Astronomers even belief that water was once prevalent on the surface.

Your conception of evolution is wrong. Life is not like gravity; a universal force that exists everywhere throughout the universe. Evolution holds that if conditions are right, life CAN (as apposed to WILL) evolve into higher forms

mars is sterile. life can't form in sterile plances, i mean, what would it eat? the theory of evolution doesn't even apply to the theoretical first organisms on earth

but yes, observing life in other planets would support the idea of abiogenesis. the problem is that earth is the only planet with liquid water close enough to study for the time. the others are either too close or too far from the sun or too far away from us.

i also think richard dawkins is a dumbass.

Actually, there is mysterious, seasonal methane on Mars. There might be life yet, but it is far too early to say.

You don't need to witness something to know it concurred. All you have to do is gather enough evidence to support it. Evolution is supported by the fossils record, genetics, biogeography, geology, observations, ect.

It also makes accurate testable predictions. It is probably the most well supported and useful theory in all of science.

Note: Macroevolution is a term that is now only used by creationists. If you don't want to be called a creationist, then don't use it.

"please don't call me a creationist or an ID'er!!!"

Then why are you using a term like 'macro evolution' and why aren't you placing a science question in the science section??

"how come there is no evidence of this process anywhere else but on our planet?"

You do know how big the cosmos is? If you were searching through a million haystacks for a needle, you'd probably still not have an idea of it...

I don't know how your claim that we have found 'no evidence' in our few straws of just one haystack can even be relevant in any meaningful way?

So far we've found that life only arises under certain conditions. We have yet to explore other planets fully to look for life, there could very well be life on other planets or moons in our solar system.

Just because we haven't found any life on Mars doesn't mean it's not there. Besides, there are certain things that all life needs, number one being water. Since there is no longer water on Mars (that we know of anyway) how could there be life?

See, here's the difference between religion and science. Religion claims to know all the answers. Those of us who accept science know that we don't know it all, and that's perfectly okay. But just because we don't know doesn't mean godidit.

---->if complex life forms can evolve from simple ones, and simple ones from single celled organisms, how come there is no life anywhere in our solar system?

Our planet is habitable , others are not.

and the process takes millions of years , so don't expect anything in your lifetime !