Anti-evolutionists ONLY: please tell, why macroevolution is impossible?

Question

Other than the fact that we can not watch it happen in our life time... Is there any (technical-scientific ) reason why MACRO evolution can NOT be a true and correct process?

Like... Does it break any natural laws and therefore it couldn't have happened?

Creationists and anti-MACRO evolution only please.

Thanks to all.

Answer 1

Nope, there is no reason. Fossil evidence is irrelevant, what matters is genetic evidence.



Genetics point completely and without doubt to the common ancestry of all living things on Earth. There is no dispute among scientists of this fact, the only reason to dismiss it is to cling on to ancient dogma in the face of scientific advancement.



Live long and prosper.



EDIT:



Then couple the refusal to accept scientific evidence with an argument from ignorance: "I can't think of any other option, so it must be God".



And to comment on that, what on Earth gets you from "evolution isn't true" to "someONE" was guiding it? What indicates that your "intelligent agent" for "design" was a being, rather than a simple force? I'm afraid I fail to understand how you made that leap.



Live long and prosper.

Answer 2

Well, "impossible" is one of those words that just kills a discussion.



Let's say that it is an extrapolation similar to saying that since I can ride a motorcycle from Chicago to Anchorage there is no reason that I cannot ride it around the world.



It is one thing to say "We can imagine a series of steps to get from A to B." But is quite another to demonstrate that those steps are reasonable. New organs and phylogeny require new information for the new protein or organ AND Integration into the organism.



It seems to me that Evolution (macro) is based in imagination and "just-so" positions that are neither observable or reasonable. But it is the only naturalistic/materialistic explanation, so to people who hold that position is simply /must/ be true.



I think the fossil record speaks as Stephen J. Gould described - organisms appear suddenly, exist for long periods of time with adaptation then go extinct. At which point they are replaced by other organisms. This is more indicative of punctuated creation than Evolution, (IMO).



You might be interested in Reasons To Believe for more information:



http://www.reasons.org/

http://www.godandscience.org/

Answer 3

Because only genetic engineering can make an entirely new form of life. In nature we observe that bacteria stays bacteria, plants stay plants, and insects stay insets. Why is this? Because an organism only produces the genetic information to make more of its own kind. Natural selection ONLY removes genetically inferior stock from a population and mutations (most of which are neutral or harmful) never radically alter an organism enough to make a new form of life. Even "claimed" beneficial mutations (debatable they even exist) never radically change an organism. This is why evolution is not science, but a religion.

Answer 4

Besides the obvious lack of evidence that you have noted?



Theoretically it is possible, however;

- Most mutations are near neutral and invisible to natural selection.

- The harmful mutations outweigh the beneficial ones by several orders of magnitude.

- Information losing mutations outweigh information gaining ones by several orders of magnitude.

- Selectable beneficial information gaining mutations are almost unknown. (I can't think of one)



It is more probable that we are devolving due to genetic entropy rather than evolving.



Even if it could be shown that macro-evolution IS occurring it would also have to be shown that it can happen fast enough to explain what evolutionists claim for it. Haldane's Dilemma, especially ReMine's rigorous mathematical treatment, shows that it can't.

Answer 5

The fossil record does not support macro-evolution. For example, in the Cambrian Explosion, which happened about 540 million years ago, almost all of the animal phyla (body plans) in earth's history, appeared "suddenly", without any previous anscestors in the rock layers below. Arguably, no new animal phyla have appeared since that time. In fact, there are now 40 less animal phyla than there were at that time. In short, the fossil record looks more like a lawn than a tree, with different species appearing abruptly and independantly of each other. This contradicts darwin's theory, and points instead to a transcendant Creator. www.reasons.org

Answer 6

macro evolution means NEW DNA must be formed in a birthing child. that new DNA must be passed on to the colony for it to propogate.

for one thing how is NEW DNA created from something that is different? it cant.

science tell us that order goes to chaos, not the reverse.



build your house and let it sit for a million years, would you expect to see a tower there instead???



if you think of the underlying process that must go on for macro evolution to happen you will see it is impossible. same thing for life to be created from non-life, or better yet - replicating life, and furthermore how can male - female life possibly evolve. its impossible according to the laws of science to happen without someone designing it to happen.

Answer 7

LACK OF EVIDENCE!..... All animals reproduce after their own KIND, Species. there is NO specific case that anyone can show that Macro evolution has EVER occurred.

Answer 8

It has NEVER been observed.