Also, life could never have originated by chemical means. Scientists still don't know how life originated, because it's origin still cannot be explained. Matter of fact, in the 1970s, Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the probability of spontaneous generation of a single cell organism was one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. To put this in perspective, if an event has the probability of one chance in 10 to the 50th power, it is considered a mathematical impossibility. This fact, Hoyle stated, is "enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
George Wald, a prominent atheist said:
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore we chose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"
"I do not want believe in God. Therefore I chose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."
That's total rubbish, and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.
The fact is, there is no difference between so-called "micro" & "macro evolution" -- none -- except the length of time under consideration.
The process is exactly the same -- descent with modifications, natural selection -- over shorter ("micro-evolution") or longer ("macro-evolution") times.
The process which produces new varieties, breeds & subspecies -- which has been observed in nature -- continues in precisely the same way to produce new species, genera, families, etc. -- and that is observed in fossils and DNA analyses.
One example I've often cited is zebras -- over a dozen different breeds & sub-species which can & do interbreed, within three species which don't normally interbreed, but can if coaxed, within two different genera, which can't successfully interbreed in nature.
Both DNA and fossils show that all this diversity happened within the past few million years.
And those most closely related radiated within the most recent time periods.
That's what evolution is all about, and to deny it is to massively close your eyes and hand-wave away evidence.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Scientists have attempted experiments on rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal."
Fossils and DNA evidence suggest that the average species live about a million years before going extinct or evolving enough to be classified a new species.
So a million years of evolution is typically what it takes before two separated populations of the same species no longer interbreed in the wild.
That makes them different species, a fact which can be seen by careful comparison of their DNAs.
As of today, the day has not yet arrived when scientists can simulate a million years of DNA evolution within a computer, and then grow the resulting creature in real life.
But eventually it will come, and then you should ask yourself: why do you put such futile efforts into denying the obvious?
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: ""No truly new species has ever been produced."
Do you not yet "get" that nothing in evolution is ever radically new, it's all baby-step incremental?
That's why we speak of "evolution not revolution".
Evolution of life is nature's way, and so there are no "truly new species", ever.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Also, life could never have originated by chemical means.
Scientists still don't know how life originated, because it's origin still cannot be explained.
Matter of fact, in the 1970s, Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the probability of spontaneous generation of a single cell organism was one chance in 10 to the 40,000 power."
As I've posted here before, there are about a dozen different scientific hypotheses of how life first began on Earth, including panspermia, space-aliens, divine miracles and various forms of abiogenesis.
None have been seriously confirmed or falsified, and so all are still more-or-less equally likely to have happened, or not happened.
But Fred Hoyle's old calculations are ludicrous, because nobody but nobody fantasies that life suddenly sprang full-blown from some mud puddle.
Every idea of "life from chemistry" supposes that even the most complex natural chemistry would be only the simplest conceivable form of "life".
But that might be enough, in the beginning, if such chemistry could "eat" and reproduce.
And if reproduction was less than perfect, well now you'd have evolution of complex chemistry.
DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "George Wald, a prominent atheist said: 'When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation.
There is no third way...'. "
More rubbish -- a false choice which is rejected by every scientist working in that area.
Today there are about a dozen different hypotheses on how life arose.
However, I do agree with Hoyle on the following: "if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
I believe that nothing in God's Universe is random chance, but everything is for a reason, a purpose and according to God's long-term plan, even the seemingly "random" nature of evolution's descent with modifications and natural selection.
And we are proof of that, imho.
Think about it...