Replies

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Macro evolution is a scientific impossibility.
While microevolution (variations within a kind, as seen in dogs) is acknowledged fact, macroevolution has no basis in reality and has never been observed."

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...

No there is a huge difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro has been observed and is proven. Macro is just a theory. It has never been observed or proven and it is a plain and simple lie to say otherwise. It is not just that macro supposedly takes more time, it is also that macro claims to chance one species into another. This process that you claim produces new species has NEVER been observed in nature. Of course animals can break into subspecies. You can see this in dogs, any of which came originally form wolves. But they can all still interbreed. But notice that their DNA never becomes more complicated. It only becomes less. The wide variety of dogs that were able to be bred from wolves now have lost information in their DNA, not gained it, as would be necessary for evolution to take place. For instance, you will never be able to to breed such a variety of dogs if you started with a Chihuahua compared to if you started from a wolf because the Chihuahua has less variants in its DNA than the wolf, having lost many of these parts along the way. For real evolution to happen DNA would have to be gained. But that is a problem because although it has been shown that parts of DNA can be lost or corrupted, it has never been shown to be gained.

Also your claim that the many theories on the origin of life all equally likely to have happened is absurd and unscientific. I'm not sure what you mean when you call Hoyle's calculation's ludicrous. You yourself say that if life spontaneously arose it would be in the form of the most simple of organisms. But that is just what Hoyle calculated for. His calculations were based on a single celled organism, You can't get any simpler than that.

Also if evolution were really true, then one would expect to find thousands and thousands of transitional forms in the fossil layer. Do we find this? No. We find hardly anything that can be called a transitional form, and even many of these are likely to simply have been a separate extinct species and not a transitional form.

As I said before the who theory of evolution goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which makes it highly questionable. After all would you believe me if I said I found a ton of exceptions to the law of gravity, but since they were all in the past and I couldn't prove that they really happened and you would just have to take my word for it?