no scientist alive today understands macroevolution

[The_Squid]

No evidence. Only speculations.

How do the creationists explain away DNA evidence for a common ancestor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[betsy]

Incorrect. Whales started out as land dwellers. They evolved into their current forms.

That's just your opinion, which is based on mere speculation! Read it again:

The evolution of the blowhole, for example, might have happened in the following way:

If you still want to believe that they've indeed evolved ........what more can I say? Believe what you want.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

How do the creationists explain away DNA evidence for a common ancestor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

We're discussing evolution here. Don't try to change the channel.

Give an evidence for Macro Evolution.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

We're discussing evolution here. Don't try to change the channel.

Give an evidence for Macro Evolution.

Whales.

[betsy]

Whales.

Sorry. That's not evidence.

[The_Squid]

We're discussing evolution here. Don't try to change the channel.

Give an evidence for Macro Evolution.

Lol

Yes, evolution.

Life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. You didn't know that? Read the article.

[cybercoma]

you are ignorant about evolution. It's actually gross, and I actually feel dirty talking to you about it...

Then don't. You can't educate someone who believes their own lies.

Edited May 16, 2016 by cybercoma

[DogOnPorch]

Sorry. That's not evidence.

Seeing fossils are apparently not evidence to you...I suppose not to the religious.

[GostHacked]

What do you think the falling apple was all about?

But can you explain why the apple falls from the tree and not into space??

[betsy]

Lol

Yes, evolution.

Life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. You didn't know that? Read the article.

Evidence, Squid. Evidence.

Give an evidence for Macro Evolution. You won't find one.

Read the OP!

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

But can you explain why the apple falls from the tree and not into space??

There's no gravity in space. And gravitational pull is strong on earth.

It's like a magnet - holding everything with mass to the planet.

I've already made the point. We have evidence that such a thing called gravity, exists.

Not having a full understanding of gravity is not comparable to having no understanding of macro evolution, since there is no evidence at all that macro evolution exists.

Everything they talk about this so-called macro evolution is pure speculation......or extrapolation.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Seeing fossils are apparently not evidence to you...I suppose not to the religious.

There are no fossils that provide evidence for macro evolution. You're "seeing" what you want to see.....

.....even though the fact is laid out to you. You can't even rise up to the challenge to provide an evidence for it.

Resisting the truth and embracing evolution without any question. That's faith, you know. Incredible, blind faith.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

There are no fossils that provide evidence for macro evolution. You're "seeing" what you want to see.....

.....even though the fact is laid out to you. You can''t even rise up to the challenge to provide an evidence for it.

Resisting the truth and embracing evolution without any question. That's faith, you know. Incredible, blind faith.

betsy, no amount of evidence can defeat your conspiracy theory.

[The_Squid]

Evidence, Squid. Evidence.

Give an evidence for Macro Evolution. You won't find one.

Read the OP!

So you're saying the fact that DNA sequencing has shown that we share a relative with .... say... bald eagles, that this is NOT evidence for evolution?

What would you call the fact that DNA shows that we share a common ancestor with every living thing on Earth? Do you just dismiss it as a conspiracy? Or just bullshit? What do you call it, if it's not evidence?

[betsy]

So you're saying the fact that DNA sequencing has shown that we share a relative with .... say... bald eagles, that this is NOT evidence for evolution?

What would you call the fact that DNA shows that we share a common ancestor with every living thing on Earth? Do you just dismiss it as a conspiracy? Or just bullshit? What do you call it, if it's not evidence?

It was said we share 99% of DNA with the chimpanzee....but now, that's reduced to less than 95%.

And no, that's not evidence for macro evolution.

As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable.

The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm?

Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038

Imho, DNA similarities with other animals, support the argument for INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

And from a Christian perspective, I'd say it supports the Biblical Creation.

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I'm thinking of templates....something that serves as a pattern.

"If molecular data [such as comparing DNA] have provoked strong reactions among researchers interested in the evolution of whales, that is nothing compared to the hornet's nest stirred up among palaeoanthropologists [those who study `human evolution']"²

No wonder evolutionist James Trefil states, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions."³

Many evolutionists are unaware that, "There is less variation between the DNA of two human beings from opposite ends of the earth than there is between the DNA of two gorillas from the same African rain forest."⁴ This statement is supported by recent research, "The extent of DNA sequence variation of chimpanzees is several-fold greater than that of humans."⁵ How do these facts support our alleged ape ancestry? Shouldn't our DNA sequence variation be as plastic as the rest of our "ancestors"?

Perhaps the most important thing we can say regarding this evidence is how much scientists still don't know about DNA and its supposed evolutionary connections. Recent research shows just 2.5% of DNA is different between people and mice, and only 1% different from a chimpanzee.⁶ A UK chief scientist said, "We share half our genes [DNA] with the banana."⁷ This convoluted field of molecular evolutionary biology is obviously becoming more puzzling--??not less--??and secularists would do well to say nothing regarding supposed evolutionary relationships until all facts are in.

https://www.icr.org/article/459/296

All these support Intelligent Design. It seems more like the Creator/Designer had made use of "templates," in creation.

And all these support the OP article.....no scientist fully understands macro evolution.

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

I don't think many scientists fully understand quantum physics, either, but it exists. I don't think, in any way, that not understanding a scientific principle is evidence that it is wrong.

I do agree with your scientist in the OP that there never should be a penalty for admitting such.

[GostHacked]

There's no gravity in space.

Well this is where you are wrong. Gravity is also how we stay orbiting around our Sun.

[betsy]

Well this is where you are wrong. Gravity is also how we stay orbiting around our Sun.

Even if I'm wrong that there's no gravity in outer space (which I think I'm not), that still doesn't take away from the fact that there is empirical evidence for gravity!

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

Even if I'm wrong that there's no gravity in outer space (which I think I'm not), that still doesn't take away from the fact that there is empirical evidence for gravity!

The furthest object from us in the universe exerts gravitational force on us. And we on it. It's just not really noticeable.

[betsy]

I don't think many scientists fully understand quantum physics, either, but it exists. I don't think, in any way, that not understanding a scientific principle is evidence that it is wrong.

Bottom line: There is no evidence for macro evolution.

Extrapolation - gross extrapolation as stated in the OP article - is no longer scientific.

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Bottom line: There is no evidence for macro evolution.

Bottom line is you have no idea what you are talking about or what you are reading.

[Guest]

Bottom line: There is no evidence for macro evolution.

Do some scientists think there is, and others disagree with them? Is the problem just one of understanding, which will be soved as we progress?

Let's face it, there's no reason why we should know everything there is to know at this stage of our development.

Edited May 17, 2016 by bcsapper

[betsy]

Do some scientists think there is, and others disagree with them? Is the problem just one of undestanding, which will be soved as we progress?

Let's face it, there's no reason why we should know everything there is to know at this stage of our development.

There is no evidence. It's all speculation or extrapolation.

If you disagree that there's no evidence.....give me one.

[betsy]

Bottom line is you have no idea what you are talking about or what you are reading.

Prove me wrong. Give an evidence for macro evolution....if you can't, then just zip it.

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy