Barbarian observes:
A
scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
I agree. For example, evolution is obvious at the micro level; but is untestable at the macro level.
It's been directly observed to happen. Can't do better than that. Moreover, even things in the past can be tested. For example, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs, and predicted transitionals between dinosaurs and birds. His prediction was tested and confirmed when paleontologists much later, found all sorts of the predicted transitionals. His prediction was also confirmed by data showing that advanced dinosaurs had the avian respiratory system, and that heme from a T-rex fossil was more like that of birds than that of other reptiles.
Therefore, macroevolution is not a scientific theory.
See above. You are wrong.
Common descent is based purely on speculation.
No, that's wrong, too. The first evidence was the discovery by Linnaeus that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Later on, transitional forms were found, filling in the gaps between taxa, further confirming the prediction. Then genetics showed that DNA phylogenies precisely recreate the same family tree. And that's confirmed by testing organisms of known descent.
Even more impressive, there is never a transitional form where evolutionary theory says that there shouldn't be one.
There is no evidence whatsoever that animals of one family, such as Canidae, or Felidae, evolved from any other family.
Even honest creationists familiar with the evidence say that there is evidence for that. Kurt Wise, for example, says that such data is "strong evidence" for macroevolution.
It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Wise correctly adds that creationism has no explanation for this evidence, but expresses confidence that eventually a reasonable creationist argument will be found. He's an honest creationist.
There is no evidence of macroevolution, so #5 is not provable.
See above. Wise has a doctorate in paleontology. While he holds to YE beliefs, he knows what he's talking about. Learn from him.
The fossil record also shows that species showed up fully formed,
See above. The evidence says otherwise.
Confirming Darwin's prediction that a well-adapted species in a relatively constant environment, should evolve very little or not at all.
Now that Gingerich and his whale evolution colleague, Hans Thewissen, have admitted the fudged the data,
Show us that. It's a common accusation, but a false one.
the once highly-touted "whale transition" line exists only in the minds of the uninformed, and, of course, in museums and textbooks.
Turns out, that since Gingrich and Thewissen made their initial discoveries, (which confirmed evolutionary predictions that there would be transitional forms between land animals and whales) a host of other transitional forms have been found. The earliest ones explained why whales have horizontal flukes instead of vertical fins like fish.
The biggest goof during this time was the discovery of Pakicetus. The initial find was a very whale-like skull with no postcranial skeleton. The assumption was that it was a primitive whale. Later, when the rest of it was found, it turns out to have been much more adapted to land and less to water than had been expected. Which was more damaging to creationism than if it had been a primitive swimming whale. It was a whale still quite adapted to land.
Later, finds like Ambulocetus filled in the gaps. Ambulocetus was a whale still capable of moving about on land to a degree, but was highly evolved for life in water. There are many, many other examples. Would you like to learn about them?
Are you familiar with this?
"Of 100 classes of organisms studied by [Kurt] Wise, the order of first appearance did not fit the predictions of evolution (derived independently of the fossil record, by cladistic analysis of shared and derived characters) in 95% of cases." ["Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book." Creation Ministries International, p,25]
How strange. You were perhaps unaware that cladistics does not predict evolutionary sequences? From a fellow creationist:
Cladograms only demonstrate a nested hierarchy of biological characters; they tell us nothing about what produced the pattern. Evolutionary cladistics also depicts a simplistic view of biological change and fails to deal with pleiotropy within organisms. These problems were recognized by some evolutionists over 30 years ago, but their criticisms largely fell on deaf ears, most likely because their comments were used as ammunition by creationists. Many problems of phylogenetic inference that cladistics claims to solve still remain largely unsolved, such as distinguishing between homology and homoplasy. Perhaps the largest problem, however, is the illusion of evolution that cladograms and the language used to describe them give to the public. They both create the illusion of a resolved genealogy despite some cladists’ disavowal of any strict genealogical connotations.
Cladistics - creation.com
Currently, there are no transitional fossil lines, only speculations.
Dr. Wise, your fellow creationist, disagrees with you. He says that these lines are "strong evidence" for evolution.
We have never seen a transitional form, period.
I notice you declined to test your belief on this. Are you ready to try, now?
Barbarian observes:
The rediscovery of Mendel's work led to predictions that gene would be sorted out in a family tree similar to that of Linnaeus. And over time, DNA and genetic data have confirmed that prediction. Genes produce the same family tree as Linnaeus prepared, to a high degree of precision. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
Current genetic research has shown that macroevolution would be virtually impossible.
Geneticists disagree with you. In fact, the rediscovery of Mendel's work cleared up a serious problem for evolutionary theory. The issue was how a new trait could persist, if inheritance was in the blood. It would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. When it became clear that inheritance was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint, the issue was resolved, and Darwin's theory was vindicated.
Macroevolution has been directly observed. Even many creationists now admit that speciation is a fact. Even the evolution of a new digestive organ has been observed. I think you've been misled about that.
Barbarian observes:
A similar result can be shown from conserved organic molecules. Recently, a small amount of heme was found in the fossil of a T-rex. When checked, it was more closely similar to that of birds than of other reptiles, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
Yep. Conserved molecules like heme change very little over time. But they do slowly change. So it can show evolutionary descent, since closely related organisms will have more similar heme. Since other evidence shows that dinosaurs and birds are more closely related than dinosaurs and other reptiles, the finding was further confirmation of the fact.
Other molecules like cytochrome C show the same pattern.
(Barbarian notes that macroevolution has been directly observes)
Only at the micro level, which is observable.
No, that's wrong. Speciation is well-documented. Would you like some examples?
Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. If you want, name more than one case. Let's see how that works out.
I cannot think of any that are "evolutionarily" connected.
As you know, I said "said to be evolutionarily connected." I don't blame you for dodging the question; rarely will a creationist touch such a question, since there are very few major groups now lacking known transitionals.
But the offer is open. If you'd like to try, let's see if your belief is correct. If you can't think of anything, perhaps you could go to Dr. Wise's paper, and pick one that he mentions.
