Micro evolution and secondary speciation is a fact. The macrochange however from one organism into another in long periods of time, the change of body plans and evolutionary novelties, phenotypic complexity and phenotypic novelty is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Its not possible. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003); Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone” (Mayr 1963, 602)something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?
Darwin “ignored the inconvenient fact that human selection for altered traits has never generated a truly new organismal feature (e.g., a limb or an organ) or formed a new species. Selection only modifies existing characters.“
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable.
Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.
The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create... Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.
“For all the accomplishments of molecular biology, we still can't tell a live cat from a dead cat.”
biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).
The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1
One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing.
Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear.
Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.
A Million Monkeys . . .
Some try to explain this problem by saying that, "A million monkeys typing away will eventually create all the works of Shakespeare... if given enough time." However, some quick calculations will show that forming just a small phrase of Shakespeare such as, "Methinks it is like a weasel.", would take a million monkeys each randomly typing 100 five-letter words a minute, around one trillion trillion trillion years on average. Clearly then, random chance is powerless to explain the existence of complex language systems or the evolution of one system into another. There must be something that helps random chance along. But what is it?
Methinks it is Like a Weasel
Maybe it is not quite fair to compare the English language to the workings of DNA and proteins. Some evolutionists might balk at this, but many actually do accept the validity of such a correlation. This acceptance indicates that evolutionists do generally recognize the coded nature of genetic information systems. In fact, Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living evolutionary biologist, also explains how evolution might work by appealing to examples of English-phrase evolution. His â€œMethinks it is like a weaselâ€ phrase evolution is really quite famous.3 It has convinced many very intelligent people that the theory of evolution easily explains the formation of complex biological language systems. So, let's look a bit into exactly what Dawkins did.
What Dawkins did was to evolve his chosen target phrase with a computer algorithm that began with a random computer generated series of letters such as â€œMWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF.â€ Dawkins begins with a non-functional meaningless phrase and then evolves â€œMethinks it is like a weaselâ€ in very short order by having the computer select for those copies that are "closest" in sequencing to, "Methinks it is like a weasel." It seems almost miraculous to watch this evolution happen before one's very eyes on similar algorithms until one realizes that the computer is selecting based on genotypic similarity to an ideal genotypic sequence - - not on phenotypic changes in function. None of the intermediate steps in this example of sequence evolution have any phenotypic (English language) function whatsoever. The intermediate phrases are meaningless, much less beneficial. These intermediate phrases represent links in an evolutionary chain of function and yet none of the links make any sense in the English language.
Missing links in the fossil record are not the real problem for evolution. The really significant missing links are found in genetics. Where are these missing genetic links? Without them, all we have are huge neutral/non-beneficial gaps. Really, what real time examples are there to adequately support the theory of common descent via mindless Darwinian evolution beyond very low levels of functional complexity?
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
(a) membrane targets and patterns
(b) cytoskeletal arrays,
(c) ion channels, and
(d) sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)
(e) Gene regulatory networks
EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY 1
Never in the modern history of evolutionary bioscience have such essentially different ideas about how to understand evolution of the animal body plan been simultaneously current. The first is the classic neo-Darwinian concept that evolution of animal morphology occurs by means of small continuous changes in primary protein sequence which in general require homozygosity to effect phenotype. The second paradigm holds that evolution at all levels can be illuminated by detailed analysis of cis-regulatory changes in genes that are direct targets of sequence level selection, in that they control variation of immediate adaptive significance. An entirely different way of thinking is that the evolution of animal body plans is a system level property of the developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) which control ontogeny of the body plan.
Molecular pathways regulating mitotic spindle orientation in animal cells
One primary feature of oriented cell division is the proper positioning of the mitotic spindle relative to a defined polarity axis. In principle, spindle orientation is achieved through signaling pathways that provide a molecular link between the cell cortex and spindle microtubules. These pathways are thought to elicit ( provoke ) both static connections and dynamic forces on the spindle to achieve the desired orientation prior to cell division. Although our knowledge of the signaling molecules involved in this process and our understanding of how they each function at the molecular level remain limited, collective efforts over the years have shed light on the importance of spindle orientation to animal development and function. Moreover, emerging evidence shows an association between improper spindle orientation and a number of developmental diseases as well as tumor formation.
and: Electrical gradients and fields are critical in the 3D function and shape of cells and organs.
Morphogenetic fields in embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer: Non-local control of complex patterning
Electrical signaling is key for cells to properly interpret their environment, and when this process goes awry, the cells default to a cancer program. While ion flows control cell-level behaviors such as migration, differentiation, and proliferation, bioelectric signals also function as master regulators of large-scale shape in many contexts: a simple signal can induce complex, highly orchestrated, self-limiting downstream morphogenetic cascades. For example, an unmodulated flux of protons can cause the formation of a complete tail of the right rise and tissue composition.
ALL EXPLANATIONS POINT TO INFORMATION. INFORMATION IS THE KEY. CHANGE THE INFORMATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE RESULT IS NOT NEW BODY PLANS, BUT DESEASE, CANCER ETC. IN THE END, THE QUESTION IS: WHERE DOES THE INFORMATION COME FROM THAT DIRECTS THE FORMATION OF NEW BODY PLANS ?
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity.
The argument of no observable evidence
1. There is not even one observable evidence that one kind of species changes into another.
2. All different proofs of evolution show only micro-evolution like the Galapagos finches changing the shapes of their beaks, stickleback fishes undergoing genetic change after the ice age.
3. These two species are still finches and fishes that underwent only some adaptation through microevolution or the limited variation that takes place within the species.
4. According to proponents of evolution, billions of microevolution mutations in the genome can create new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes will result in evolution.
(a) most mutations will be lost due to drift, so a mutation will have to appear many times before it gets fixed in the population;
(b) necessarily, the mutation rate will always be much greater than the fixation rate;
(c1) Kimura is famous for showing that most mutations are nearly-neutral, and therefore are not subject to selection.
(c2) To understand the effect of the near neutral mutation we can give the example of the aging of our bodies. We can repair teeth, do facelifts, even replace hearts. But it is the cumulative aging of the individual cells (principally due to mutations) which places a specific limitation on our lifespan. This is true even though each individual cell is trivial and entirely expendable. Just as the human body rusts out due to countless microscopic mistakes (all of which in themselves are insignificant), the human genome must also be “rusting out” due to near--neutral mutations [that are very subtle]. No selection scheme can stop this process. This is the essence of the near-neutral mutation problem.
5. The explanation of evolution by mutations has a real problem.
6. Also, experiments on fruit-flies showed that genetic changes are limited and cannot create new species.
6. Macro-evolution or changing of one species into another is not proven. No genetic changes are reported.
7. Evolution is false; creation by an intelligent God is true.
8. God exists.
Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:
Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:
Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."
John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.
James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.
Mutations either beneficial, negative or neutral are rare instances. They happen on average about once in every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule (10^7, a one followed by 7 zeroes). For evolution to progress, organisms require a series of related mutations to occur. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of their separate probabilities. If every 10^7 duplications of DNA a mutation occurs the equation would start to look like this; 10^7 x 10^7 or 10^14. a one followed by 14 zeroes, a hundred trillion. Mutations which are related or not would barely change finch beak sizes due to drought, or change the shape of a fly wing.
What are the odds of getting three related mutations? That is, again taking into account the mutation rate of duplicated DNA, one in a billion trillion or 10^21. Suddenly the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make that chance very likely. You can quickly tell that at just three related mutations, evolution via related, dependent mutational change through natural selection as its mechanism to produce truly novel information or molecule-to-man change is woefully inadequate.
Micro evolution (intrsapecies adaptions- changes/deletions to existing DNA genes) is a fact.
Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA) is a myth.
Reducibility of "irreducible" systems
Its interesting that Wiki provides as argument for macro change the fact that a research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature showed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrated that it is possible for complex features to evolve naturally..This paper describes a computer simulation and thus contains no actual biology. So rather than provide evidence in the natural world, they resort to computer simulations.
following is the paper :
The evolutionary origin of complex features
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms—computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
In the discussion section, we read: "Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that will be built on simpler features that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires..."
Well, no. The Lenski simulation requires that complex systems exhibiting complex functions can always be built up from simpler systems exhibiting simpler function . Macro change needs to explain many de novo features, like the arise of wings, legs, body organs etc, starting from biological systems which did not have such features at all.
"The simulation by Lenski et al. assumes that all functioning biological systems are evolutionary kludges of subsystems that presently have function or previously had function. But there's no evidence that real-life irreducibly complex biological machines, for instance, can be decomposed in this way. If there were, the Lenski et al. computer simulation would be unnecessary. Without it, their demonstration is an exercise in irrelevance.
Following are the main critique points :
1.Stacking the Deck: It was pre-ordained that the complex function can be created from the less complex functions (they hand-coded a solution before even running the simulation)--but there is no such guarantee in biology that subsystems can be so easily combined to produce anything useful! The complexity gap between the smaller functions (NAND, etc.) and the target functions (EQU) is not very big. In fact, they were able to create EQU using only 5 of the more primitive logic operation subsystems. This means that as far as logic is concerned, only 5 of the basic logic functions used in the programs are needed to evolve EQU. They created a simulation which they knew could evolve the target function through the subsystems. (This is why I have titled this critique "Evolution by Intelligent Design.")
2.Too Much Selective Advantage: Selective advantage was given to literally every single addition of logic functions in the organisms which evolved EQU. Additionally, every mutation which added code, always added functional line(s) of code, while in nature mutations are never guaranteed to have any meaning or functionality in the environment. This makes the evolution of EQU essentially inevitable, and it does not test irreducible complexity. In a true irreducibly complex system, there will be no selective advantage along an evolutionary pathway. In real world, there is no guarantee that the subsystems you need will necessarily give you a selective advantage along your evolutionary pathway.
3.Illustrating that Irreducible Complexity is Unevolvable: When the aforementioned "selective advantage" was taken away, and fitness only increased when the target function EQU appeared, EQU NEVER EVOLVED in their simulations! This is very significant because it shows that they modeled true irreducible complexity, and that when they did, irreducible complexity could not evolve!
Modeling Irreducible Complexity
The paper made one profound finding when it accurately modeled true irreducible complexity (first full paragraph, pg. 143). Michael Behe has defined irreducible complexity as:
"An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)
When Lenski et al. created a simulation with high irreducible complexity, i.e. there was no selective advantage until the target function arose, EQU never evolved! Consider this quote from the Lenski paper:
"At the other extreme, 50 populations evolved in an environment where only EQU was rewarded, and no simpler function yielded energy. We expected that EQU would evolve much less often because selection would not preserve the simpler functions that provide foundations to build more complex features. Indeed, none of these populations evolved EQU, a highly significant difference from the fraction that did so in the reward-all environment (P ~= 4.3 x 10-9, Fisher's exact test)."
In other words, when there is no selective advantage until you get the final function, the final function doesn't evolve. In this case, their simulation probably DID model biological reality because irreducible complexity claims that there is no advantage until you get the final function. In fact in such a scenario, it found that the evolution of such a structure was impossible. In other words, they just proved that irreducible complexity is unevolvable.
The Lenski paper can only be seen as a scientific response to the claims of ID proponents, published in a high profile journal such as Nature. Despite the fact that the authors of the Lenski paper would likely deny this fact, there are many clues which show that the article is intended as a rebuttal to the claims of ID proponents. Not only does this validate the work of ID proponents as posing a legitimate challenge to Darwin's theory, but it also indicates that the claims of ID proponents are eminently testable, falsifiable (though as discussed above, not yet falsified), and therefore also scientific in nature.
The article even attempts to address irreducible complexity without using the term. "Thus, although more than two dozen mutations were used to build EQU, undoing any one of them destroyed this function." They are stating that EQU was irreducibly complex, but yet it evolved. Thus, Exhibit C is as follows: the article directly purports to test the evolution of irreducible complexity but yet never uses the phrase. (Note: It is arguable that their stated conclusions about the evolution of irreducible complexity do not match the findings of their simulations. When EQU evolved, the study did not truly model irreducible complexity because it employed a "reward-all" environment where some function could be gained by adding parts which could also contribute to the final function. When the article properly modeled irreducible complexity, where only EQU was rewarded, EQU never evolved!)
While the author Carl Zimmer quotes co-author Christopher Adami to sing an over-inflated victory song, one important point should not be lost: this study implicitly proves that the claims of ID proponents, such the claim that some biological features are irreducible complexity, are eminently testable via the methods of science. Apparently Nature saw the claim of irreducible complexity as such a threat to evolution that it saw fit to publish a study which attempted to model the evolution of irreducible complexity.
“A wide spectrum of researchers – ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists – gathered at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species… The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
Macroevolution, in darwinian fashion, is unverifiable. Not a single evidence they can provide to prove the capacity of natural selection acting on random mutation to grow new fully functioning biological features in an organism. The sudden appearance of some 35 new phyla in Cambrian explosion which were without clear morphological ancestors from pre-cambrian period, within a very narrow geologic time span--which is macroevolution at its face--is indicative of the fact that there were other mechanisms responsible for it. Intelligent Design is in itself an evolutionary mechanism.
- Lewin, R. 1980 (Nov 21). Science 210:883.
How can macro evolution be repeated? It cannot be repeated, i.e., the theory is not replicable. According to evolutionists, the processes are so slow that we cannot observe the major tenets of the theory, i.e. massive genetic and morphological change and increase in genetic information happening today, because they are either so slow (gradualism) or too fast to show up in the fossil record (punctuated equilibrium). Since the major tenets of the hypothesis cannot be observed, they are not scientific. And such a grand theory cannot be replicated, adding veracity to the claim that evolution is primarily unscientific.
We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms.
"Given so much time,
the "impossible" becomes possible,
The possible probable,
And the probable virtually certain,
One only has to wait:
Time itself performs the miracles."
(Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954)
Aside from the complete lack of empirical evidence for this claim, whether now or in the past, evolutionists can’t even articulate the likely steps that might cause this phenomenon to occur.
This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature.
What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process.
The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does.
Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire."
You say "Prove it."
He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.)
You say "What does that prove?"
He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them"
You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?"
"Because it's GREEN" he says.
"What else can you show me?"
He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire."
You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask.
"I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?"
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences For Macroevolution”
The correspondence between phylogeny and the fossil record is not as strong as it might first seem. When the order of all kingdoms, phyla and classes is compared with the most reasonable phylogenies, over 95 percent of all the lines are not consistent with the order in the fossil record.
The evidence for the 'theory of unguided evolution' is historical, indirect, circumstantial, intangible, a tissue of fragile fairy-tales.
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Ten examples are:
Sexual Reproduction and Mitosis
Birds and Eggs and Bird Nests
Eyes and Hearts
Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
The Kreb’s Citric Acid Cycle
Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings
Insects, spiders, and their webs
Bird teeth and boney jaws evolving then dis-evolving, forming beaks
Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level". Macroevolution can not be observed directly, but is instead studied through the examination of fossils (paleontology) and the similarities and differences in the anatomy of organisms (comparative morphology).
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a 1927 book titled Variabilitat und Variation. He asserted that micro- and macroevolution were processes involving different mechanisms and caliber. The terms were later introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko's former student Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species.
Now, this analysis highlights a significant distinction we need to make: micro-evolutionary changes are late-developing, and do not affect the core body plan and its associated functions. Such mutations are indeed possible and are observed. But, when the mutations get to the fundamental level of changing body plans -- i.e. macro-evolution -- they face the implication that we are now disturbing the core of a tightly integrated system, and so the potential for destructive change is much higher. Consequently, the genes that control such core features are stabilised by a highly effective negative feedback effect: random changes strongly tend to eliminate themselves through loss of integrity of vital body functions.
It is thought to provide the mechanism by which an original taxa (i.e. phylum or class) may change enough to result in newly descendant phyla or classes. The development of new taxonomic groups requires new types of structures (morphology) and functions[/b]
We always need to make sure we understand the argument correctly in order to deal with its rebuttals. What is meant when someone says that evolution is not replicable? Now think about the grand theory of evolution and what it teaches. It teaches us that all living creatures descended from a common ancestor or a few of them by purely natural means. It teaches us that nature, on its own, can create new genetic information in order to build more complex living creatures from simpler ones. It says that over a long period some bacteria-like creature in a population of such creatures changed into fish, a certain number of which changed into amphibians, a certain number of which changed into reptiles, a certain number of which changed into birds or mammals, a few of which changed into us. They believe that this was done primarily via natural selection and mutation. When did this all happen? According to evolutionists, it happened for millions and millions of years before humans even evolved from their ape ancestors.
Regarding the avian respiratory system, McIntosh contends that a functional transition from a purported reptilian respiratory system to the avian design would lead to non-functional intermediate stages. He quotes John Ruben stating, “The earliest stages in the derivation of the avian abdominal air sac system from a diaphragm-ventilating ancestor would have necessitated selection for a diaphragmatic hernia in taxa transitional between theropods and birds. Such a debilitating condition would have immediately compromised the entire pulmonary ventilatory apparatus and seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage.” With such unique constraints in mind, McIntosh argues that the “even if one does take the fossil evidence as the record of development, the evidence is in fact much more consistent with an ab initio design position – that the breathing mechanism of birds is in fact the product of intelligent design.”
― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!”
― Michael J. Behe
“Random mutations much more easily debilitate genes than improve them, and that this is true even of the helpful mutations. Let me emphasize, our experience with malaria’s effects on humans (arguably our most highly studied genetic system) shows that most helpful mutations degrade genes. What’s more, as a group the mutations are incoherent, meaning that they are not adding up to some new system. They are just small changes - mostly degradative - in pre-existing, unrelated genes. The take-home lesson is that this is certainly not the kind of process we would expect to build the astonishingly elegant machinery of the cell. If random mutation plus selective pressure substantially trashes the human genome, why should we think that it would be a constructive force in the long term? There is no reason to think so.”
― David Berlinski
“Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”
― Scott F. Gilbert
“Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.”
― Gareth J. Nelson
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
― Michael J. Behe
“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Alan H. Linton
“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”
― Gareth J. Nelson
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
― William A. Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
“Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.”
― James P. Hogan
“A physicist that I know commented that many other scientific disciplines, such as geology, anthropology, astronomy, are also challenged by biblical fundamentalism, but their people seem to be able to get on with their work without worrying unduly. Only Darwinians seem thrown into a frenzy that sends them running to litigation and demanding censorship. His explanation was that it's a rival religion.”
― Thomas Nagel
“In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture... by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.”
Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005
the amount of information required to transform a single-celled organism into a human being would be greater than the information required to transform the manufacturing plant for a Little Red WagonTM into the Star Ship Enterprise — complete with warp drive engines and holodeck! Can natural selection, acting on accidental changes to the assembly directions of the little red wagon, accomplish this transformation?
Natural selection is similar to the quality control department at the wagon assembly plant and our genetic code is similar to a document containing the entire manufacturing process for the red wagon. Everything needed to manufacture the wagon, including the specifications for all of the materials of construction…all of the individual components…the processes needed to manufacture them…all of the metal press specifications…all of the robotics and programming language…the assembly instructions…the paint specifications…the employee benefits manual… EVERYTHING needed for the wagon’s construction needs to be attached as a manual to the bottom of the wagon. The next wagon to be produced must use only the information in the existing wagon to make the next copy. The quality department (natural selection) can only see the finished wagon, not the enormous amount of information in the manufacturing manual (the genetic code of the wagon). The question is: can random changes in the assembly manual (the genetic code) allow the quality control department (natural selection) to transform the little red wagon into a better wagon and ultimately into the USS Enterprise?
The amount of information contained within the simplest single cell organism (similar to the information required to build a wagon assembly plant) would fill a small library. Suppose you started with a perfect set of instructions in this library and randomly changed hundreds of individual letters throughout the instructions. Very few of these changes would be critical for assembly or cause a faulty wagon which the quality control department (natural selection) would reject. It is far more likely that almost all of the random changes (these are called mutations in living organisms) would result in no noticeable change and the wagons would roll off the assembly line with mistakes in their manuals intact — to be used in the creation of the next generation of wagons. This next generation would then have another set of barely noticeable mistakes added, one random letter mistake at a time. Given enough generations of the wagons, and with every increasing letter-by-letter mistake in their assembly manuals; eventually the point would be reached when wagons could no longer be produced from the instructions because there are so many tiny mistakes present. Large mistakes can be eliminated by natural selection, but not the small mistakes because, one wrong “letter” at a time, they are essentially undetectable in the final product. Yet, in the end they will drive the manufacturing process to extinction the same way one rust molecule at a time will destroy a car. This is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.
It would seem that neither mutations, nor natural selection, can remotely justify the dogmatic belief in evolution as the explanation for either life’s development or its origin.
In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, “[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” (pg. 39)
Evidence for such an occurrence is lacking in the fossil record.
Common structures can support a common designer thesis just as well as one of common ancestry.
Macroevolution is implausible, proteins evolving in small increments fits the evidence, crossing the large gaps is not realistic.(Plaisted 2005)
(Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).
“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible”
~ William Dembski,
"From the design theorist’s perspective, the positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance. This is not to deny large-scale evolutionary changes, but it is to deny that the Darwinian mechanism can account for them. Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism."
'Evolution' is a slippery word. I would say 'Minor changes within species happen', but Darwin didn't write a book called 'How Existing Species Change Over Time'. He wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species'. He purported to show how the same process leads to new species, in fact, every species. And the evidence for that grand claim is, in my opinion, almost totally lacking. Expelled April 18 2008 31.29
Professor Boudreaux is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana.
there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied.
A number of evolutionists openly admit that the coveted fossil record is devastating to the entire scheme of organic evolution, be it neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium or whatever. It has also been clearly demonstrated that observed similarities between organisms, fossil or living, have absolutely nothing to do with proving evolution per se.
Bryan Bissell Darwinism has NO MECHANISM. PERIOD. Creation has a mechanism that is supported by ALL available inferences from observations of complex functioning systems, 100%. In every other field that would by definition be a falsification of Darwinism. The sole and ONLY reason it's not in this case is because of the rebellion of man against following God's rules of ultimate freedom. Tragic. Show me many demonstrations that mutations/natural selection with NO intelligence involved can create massive amounts of NEW genetic information and develop entirely new organs and cause any species to go into a different phyla. Heck, you can use bacteria if you wish.
Until you DEMONSTRATE that or something close to to with EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, which NO ONE has EVER done so far, you have ZERO mechanism. NADA. ZILCH. ZIP.
I'll be waiting for your experimental evidence. And don't claim that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift or any of them help your case at all. They don't. PERIOD. It's precisely because those involve LOSS of genetic information, NOT GAIN, that Behe and many others know that Darwinism is a fraud.
Darwinism is exactly like claiming to have gone from earth to Mars without any available space vehicle. It HAS NO MECHANISM. PERIOD. NONE demonstrated. NONE proven. PERIOD. You have no testable mechanism for Darwinism nor any inferences that can create anything complex or new. Creations testable mechanism is that creative intelligence has designed every single complex thing that we know the origin of. Then it's a simple inference to creation by God who we have VAST evidence for.
Last edited by Admin on Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:22 am; edited 89 times in total