Macroevolution states that simple non life evolved into complex higher life- they assign a ‘bottom up’ evolution of information in other words- whether they start in a warm soup, or with created simple organisms, or even with more complex life- they MUST face the serious problem that information doesn’t evolve to the levels NEEDED to sustain life fro m the bottom up
Macroevolution claims that info gets ‘piled up’ (small changes get accumulated until macrochanges occure), however, piling info on top of info, simply throwing a bunch of changed info into a functioning system, can’t, number one, result in macrochange, and number two, can’t account for metainfo. While it might be possible to accidently add some complexity, this simplistic complexity comes nowhere near the incredible complexity of metainfo. Changing info wouldn’t equipt that changed cell with some ‘knowledge’ for how to ‘fit themselves into the overall whole’ so as not to disrupt the whole species, and muck up the whole works- IF you are goign to get change, you are going to HAVE to have a metainfo already inplace to deal with each individual change, direct it, assimilate it into ALL the systems and subsystems for which the change IS goign to affect. The changed cell itself simply does NOT have this absolutely necessary metainfo within it’s makeup to facilitate these iireducibly complex changes, and can NOT coordinate the changes with every other system for which it WILL also change.
The infromation HAS to somehow come fro mthe top down- in other words, from the metainfo down, and IF that info is missing, there simpyl is NO way to gain it via naturalistic means regardless of how many incremental small changes you throw at it- ionfact, the more you throw at it, the more complex the NEED for a governing organizer becoems
Macroevolution didn’t happen- not at any level of supposed beginnings- it couldn’t! Chemically, and biologicaly, nature simply is incapable of stepwise creation of metainfo!
Because about the only folks who are contesting the theory of evolution nowadays are fundamentalists of one religion or another. They are convinced that the theory is inaccurate based on religious belief, and use faux science in an effort to support that belief. Many, if not most, are also young earthers, while a few are geocentrists, showing how much they pay attention to scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that one thing about evolution that has been proved true. Cat got your tongue?
How about common descent? Even Behe admits that is accurate. If you disagree, argue with him first.