Well, of course lower taxa as subspecies are formed all the time within a host species, but then how is it that higher taxon exist?
The first life was in the ultimate highest taxon: life. This life developed along a number of paths. Paths we now call Domains. These Domains then had lower taxa which we call Kingdoms. The higher taxa are merely created by definition of lower taxa. So, evolution doesn't propose that new higher taxa will form, only more and more lower taxa.
We know that horses and dogs have different breeds, which we should expect, but where is the smoking gun that shows any sort of macroevoultionary development?
Probably more appropriate to discuss chimps and humans rather than dogs and horses. The evidence that the two have diverged from a common ancestor has been addressed already.
Darwin sought to answer this question in his day and hoped that an answer would eventually be uncovered. Here we are over 150 years after the fact and we are still asking the exact same questions. Don't you find that odd if the theory is presumed to be so solid?
We aren't asking the same questions as Darwin. Many of the concepts that Darwin proposed have been ultimately discarded and many of his questions have been answered. We are still asking very similar questions because science always asks questions. Nowadays scientists are rarely asking the kinds of questions you claim 'we' are asking. It is only 'we' when defined in terms of creationists.
An interesting notion has that is often overlooked is that there is no tangible evidence that all things are related by a common ancestor since we don't have the progenitors sequence on file.
There is evidence. First, the fossil record gives as an idea that life has existed in many varying forms which over time have changed in a variety of ways. Next, the genetic evidence is massive evidence that current species are related to one another by more distant common ancestors. The fact that the genetic evidence has successfully been used to predict where in the fossil record we'd expect to find certain organisms also indicates that the evidence is very strong.
And if you think about it logically, DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense as a common Designer argument.
Of course they are similar to the homology argument. It is a homology argument. The point is not that they are similar though - that could easily be the result of common design. I discussed this in the post you are replying to. The point is the specific patterns with the similarities. The fact that the morphological comparisons produce extremely similar conclusions to genetic comparisons. That is what must be explained, and that is what the common designer argument is currently unable to explain in terms not related to heredity.
I went into this very rebuttal in the post you replied to, so if you want to discuss it any more, simply refer back to that and respond to that.
No, the real kicker is a case of garbage in, garbage out. No predictions were made, those were postdictions.
Quite the contrary. Darwin himself stated that the marsupials and the placentals must have split from one another a long long time ago. If we don't know what the fossil date is, we can still calculate it using the genetic clock. That is a predictive power. It doesn't matter that we know the conclusion from other sources - since that fact does not enter the maths.
They simply look at organisms that share the most similarity and tailor their argument according to that.
I could share with you a paper, and you show where they did that some time. Indeed, if you have time you can quickly read some of my posts
this related thread, you will see me discuss this issue step by step with Ray Martinez.
The methodology is to take a date from the fossil record of a probable common ancestor with two extant organisms. They then use that date to calibrate a clock. From that date they can work out the dates which other fossils will be calculated at. If the date they got from the fossil record was wrong, then the clock would be incorrectly calibrated and the calculated dates of common ancestors would be wildly incorrect. It could only give accurate results if the assumptions plugged into it are right or a gigantic coincidence has happened. The other alternative is that some agent deliberately placed the evidence there like that without leaving any evidence of them having done so. You should try that defense in court one day - see if they think that's enough to cause reasonable doubt.
So: if a person who was ignorant of the fossil record was told the date of one common ancestor, could take genetic samples from two or more descendants of that ancestor and tell you where the common ancestor for birds and crocodiles would be in the fossil record. Being able to tell somebody the date of a possible fossil, without even knowing if a fossil matching the description has ever been found is what we refer to as predictive power.
This article posits that mice [sic] share 97.5% biochemical similarity with that of the common field mouse.
I see it, I think that is using a similar method that gives us 98.5% for chimps, but I'm more used to seeing the currently more discussed figure of 96% for chimps.
™ Version 4.2
