Replies

One of the best tests of a scientific theory is to see how effective it is in making predictions. Can you give me an example of a prediction that macroevolution makes?
Sure. I wrote about this on an earlier thread. Here, post 160.

Here's another macroevolutionary prediction (two, actually):

THE FUTURE OF MANKIND

Two questions are frequently asked about the future of mankind. The first one is, What is the probability that the human species will break up into several species? The answer is clear: none at all. Humans occupy all the concievable niches from the Arctic to the tropics that a humanlike animal might occupy. Furthermore, there is no geographic isolation between any of the human populations. Whenever geographically isolated human races developed in the last 100,000 years, they interbred readily with other races as soon as contact was reestablished. Today there is far too much contact among all human populations for any kind of effective long-term isolation that might lead to speciation.
The second question is, Could the now existing human species evolve as a whole into a "better" new species? Could Man become superman? Here again, one cannot be hopeful. To be sure, there is abundant genetic variation within the human genotype to serve as material for appropriate selection, but modern conditions are very different from the time when some populations of Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens. At that time, our species consisted of small troops, in each of which there was strong natural selection with a premium on those characteristics that eventually resulted in Homo sapiens. Furthermore, as in most social animals, there was undoubtedly strong group selection.
Modern humans, by contrast, constitute a mass society and there is no indication of any natural selection for superior genotypes that would permit the rise of the human species above its present capacities. With selection for improvement no longer being exercised, there is no chance for the evolution of a superior human species. Indeed, some students of this problem fear that a deterioration of our species is inevitable under the conditions of a mass society. However, genetic deterioration is not an immediate danger, considering the high variability of the human gene pool.
Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (2001), pg 261

What is the probability that the human species will break up into several species? The answer is clear: none at all. Humans occupy all the concievable niches from the Arctic to the tropics that a humanlike animal might occupy.

So what? If evolution were true, then this could not be an impediment to evolution. Single celled organisms - the first organisms on earth - are still the most common life on earth. So much so that in spite of their minute size (they are even smaller than the average human cell of which each person has some 100 trillion) they constitute some 90% of the biological mass on earth. They are also found everywhere - including in places where even humans and roaches cannot be found. So clearly these organisms had no necessity to evolve into higher species.

Furthermore, there is no geographic isolation between any of the human populations.

Again - see above. I am beginning to wonder if this hero of evolution is really an evolutionist.

Today there is far too much contact among all human populations for any kind of effective long-term isolation that might lead to speciation.

Speciation is not evolution. Splitting the gene pool of a species does not create new genetic information, it only decreases the genetic information of each new species, it makes the species less viable, not more viable and it does not add any new functioning. Like natural selection, speciation cannot be the source of more complex forms, of more complex organisms, so this hero of evolution is talking more garbage.

To be sure, there is abundant genetic variation within the human genotype to serve as material for appropriate selection, but modern conditions are very different from the time when some populations of Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens. At that time, our species consisted of small troops, in each of which there was strong natural selection with a premium on those characteristics that eventually resulted in Homo sapiens.

The question that must be asked again of this hero of evolution is how can selection which destroys genetic information create a more complex species? Clearly it cannot be the source of it. That he denies any source other than selection for the creation of new species shows quite well that at least according to his criteria, evolution is impossible.

However, genetic deterioration is not an immediate danger, considering the high variability of the human gene pool.

Again Mayr precludes the possibility of creation of any new genetic information. Selecting destroys information, it does not add to it and therefore cannot create complexity which is what evolution claims is how we descended from single celled organisms.