The last time I posted this Zachriel responded with the following:If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
However we now know that is incorrect. So here it is again.
“Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.” Henry Schaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia
“Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing; it may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” Sherlock Holmes
“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” Unknown
Common descent, that being that all of life’s diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown last universal common ancestor via descent with modification, is based on indirect, i.e. circumstantial, evidence. It cannot be objectively tested. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be verified. The concept isn’t even of any practical use. Yet it endures as a scientific concept. And people wonder what has happened to science education.
“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.” Michael Denton
“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.” Sir Alistor Hardy
Fossil record:How was the fossil record formed?
Was it formed by one or a series of catstrophies? Was it formed by slow and gradual sedimentray deposition? Or was it a combination? For any combination scenario how can we tell which sediments were laid down via some catastrophy and which were deposited via some gradual process?Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change.
Fossils can’t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution.
Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed.
Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering.
Fossilization does not require millions of years.Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.87 2006
The first issue I have with that article is the definitions of micro
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
The issues are:
is a vague/ ambiguous concept at best
2) Creationists have accepted that the "Created Kinds" were most likely close to today's classification of Genus
. Meaning with the above definitions even YECs are macro
evolutionists. IOW there isn't any distinction.
The following offers a better insight into the debate:glossaryevolution, biological
—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution”; 2) macroevolution
—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years. A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
The ERV argument for CD is especially weak. We are expected to believe that an ERV will hang around at the same chromosomal position and in intact enough to be recognizable as an ERV for millions of generations, all the while other genetic changes are occurring that will bring about the morphological differences in the diverging species. Now why would a useless piece of genetic material be afforded that type of preservation? Why would it be kept at all?
Do evolutionists understand the process of meiosis? The ERV argument tells me they do not.
To finish there isn't any data that demonstrates a population of bacteria can evolve into anything but bacteria.
There isn't any data that demonstrates a population of single-celled organisms can evolve into something other than single-celled organisms.
And there isn't any data that demonstrates any mutation/ selection process can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.
IOW the theory of evolution just requires faith- faith in Father Time, Mother Nature and the blind watchmaker.