Summations Only

I am interested in todays best evidence for macro-evolution. With the phylogentic tree falling apart, and the failures of bacteria experiments to produce organisms with significant information gain, I am wondering if there is anything else evolution has to offer.The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument. The same evidence could infer common design. Common components over a varied selection of organisms as well as similar building codes (hox genes, DNA) suggest to many common design.I am interested in hard evidence that moves macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory? Evidence of the same standard that is demanded from intelligent design science. I look forward to the responses.

I would say homology and morphology is equally supportive of common descent and common design. I can certainly see the association, and it is logical to see. Common ancestor and common design would be very difficult to distinguish, if at all.I would say homology is a good case to infer common ancestor. The circular reasoning I see is, because evolution is a fact, similar structures and systems show relationship to common ancestors. Because the fossil record shows the relationships with common ancestors, evolution is a fact.Because homology isn't evidence, but inference and conjecture, it is inconclusive and cannot be used to dogmatically state evolution is a fact. In my opinion. ID could make the same claim.The fossil record shows similarities between organisms. The rest is assumption based on the predetermined belief it is evolution that caused this similarity.Edited by idscience, : addingEdited by idscience, : added

Lets start with the 5 best examples that meet your definition of macro-evolution.As far as the only contention between ID and Evo is this hypothesis, it would be rather lengthy and I must say irregular to cite proof for agreement? ID agrees variation within a species is a fact, and that natural selection is a known mechanism for limited change. No arguments there so what do you want me to cite?Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-clue-how-life-beganUniverse: Hawking believing that universes can create themselves from nothing because of laws like gravity exist, is an indicator to me that is pretty much up in the air. So what is left to argue about? common ancestry.

So for you, the best evidence is that the world has different varieties of life in it, and the fossil record pretty much shows us what we see today? This is your scientific evidence?
You say there have been claims of common design but no evidence. You are claiming evidence for evolution that is subjective, and can be used for common design. The only reason it can't is because you say it can't. Common components are used all the time by engineers, and designers. There is evidence to some, from what is known about intelligent actions. Digital coding in DNA, and the regulatory systems and the language and building plans used to construct organisms. I am not saying any of this proves ID but certainly it suggests further investigation. Certainly there is enough that ignorant personal attacks, ridicule and mocking is unwarranted.to summarily throw out ID as so much "pixie dust" is short sighted. To say ID has to explain all the answers for a designer is absurd, and doesn't negate any evidence suggesting an intelligent agent involvement.

Nothing is being tested. All that is observed is similarities. DNA in fossils shows similarity. How do you test for morphology in past events?I would expect similar components and systems in organisms that don't seem to fit branches of the tree. Seemingly different unrelated creatures with common components would suggest a possible design. For example, an RFID for your car ignition, and the same controller for an industrial door lock. Very similar system or component but unrelated otherwise.

What are you talking about? Where are we a school yard? If you don't have anything that is ok. I thought you were asking me for refs on my other statements as well. It was pretty clear in the response what the quote was for. If the intent of the reply was confusing to you, I may be talking to the wrong guy. If you want to dance, dance, but if you want a discussion, get serious.The title of this thread is to find examples of macro-evolution defined anyway you like. Evidence outside of conjecture or inference from similarity. I have seen some pretty ambiguous definitions that cover just about any change over long periods of time at or above the species level. I am here for an education as a dissenter. If there is someone here who wants to play ball and not games, that would be grand.If there isn't any outside the fossil record and homology, I would still like to know what convinces anyone here that variation of longer periods of time can produce vast increases of information leading to changes in body plans.

Guys, is anyone reading the posts? The comment was that the only arguments between ID and evolution is macro-evolution.Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states that an undirected process of random mutation along with natural selection is sufficient to produce completely new body plans. ID does not hold that this mechanism is sufficient. Natural selection as stated above is responsible for limited changes and that is non controversial. The increase of information needed to accomplish novel structures like limbs, new organs, and wings can not be accomplished by a step by step random mutation and selection process.

Typical speak. I have found it regular, that when evolutions weak points are discussed, the skeptic is always accused of not understanding how evolution works. Mean while, you have offered no evidence yourself. "looking at the evidence" what evidence? I have been accused of ramblings, so step up, and follow your own advise. Interesting! Darwin looks around at all the diversity of life around him. He predicts that the fossil record will show diversity of life. The prediction is found to be true and evolution is confirmed.What about the prediction of "junk DNA" http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html
If Id was given a fair shake, maybe we would be further ahead in fighting disease, as it is linked now to "junk DNA". In 1994 Mims III submitted a paper about junk dna and it was rejected. http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html
Another prediction is that the fossil record would show innumerable successive intermediate organisms, but the Cambrian explosion would seem to contradict that. Since then many have taken fossils and made declarations that this one is transitional to that one, which is subjective. This prediction seems lacking.Tiktaalik was hailed as an example of a transitional form and arrived exactly as predicted in time. Until Tetrapod tracks were found predating tiktaalik by millions of years.
http://www.nature.com/...al/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html
Determining Tiktaalik as a transitional form is again subjective anyhow, and not something you can hang you hat on to deflate any other possibility. To look at fossil millions of years old and say, yup, "this is a transition from that" to the exclusion of all other theories is not "science", its opinion. How many times has paleo opinions been over turned?My point is not that there is much to learn, that there is not reasonable cause to accept macro as a possible hypothesis. My objection is with the dogmatic rejection off everything that calls it into question. Clearly, there is reason to be skeptical. "Science" is supposed to be skeptical. The mocking and ridicule doesn't come from opposition to interpretation of evidence, it comes from religious bigotry. Creationist is used as a derogatory word around evolution circles. "flat Earthers", "geocentric throw backs", "young Earthers", all designed to offend, and has nothing to do with ID hypothesis. More often than not, the motives of ID proponents are attacked not the substance.

Look at the premise of your question. "that is not due to common descent". Common descent is not a fact, it is an inference from a predetermined bias that it did indeed happen.An unbiased question would be, do I know of any evidence that would tend to contradict a common ancestry. The only way I thing this will occur is as we dig deeper into the genome. interpreting fossil evidence is not very convincing or conclusive. How do you determine what descended from what accurately? how many human missing links have turned out to be just monkeys, or lemurs in Ida's case?, or pigs jaws for that matter. Fossils are subjective interpretation, not facts. http://www.physorg.com/news152274071.htmlThis discontinuity is what I am talking about. Here we have species mating with other species. I thought the def of separate species was that they were isolated and unable to breed with each other.Horizontal Gene Transfer seems like a work around for what was not predicted. It certainly isn't natural selection acting on random mutation and being passed on to descendants. If you look at enough contradictions to predictions, at some point you need to step back and take a look. Evolutionists, won't do that because, the fixed dogma is that it happened, and they just have to figure out how it happened. That is the bias that blinds observation and discoveries like non coding DNA having function.What is your evidence for common descent other than some paleo saying in his opinion it did? cite your sources. The fact that we are three pages into this and not one piece of empirical evidence has been brought forth tells me this may be troublesome to find.

Typical. If you noticed the title was for your participation. There is nothing in the title about me defending my position. It is a request for evidence from you. Typically, there are some who will side step the issue by turning tables.In stead of a simple response of "here is my best evidence", my positions have been questioned, and I was asked to cite sources, which I did. apparently they are not enough for you either. I have noticed you offer no rebut, but, have found it reasonable to denounce me for stating and citing my position. Now typically, the one to offer no evidence throws in the towel after one last insult. I am not surprised but I am disappointing.I know there are some good people here with some constructive, and defensible arguments. Maybe even convincing. I will wait for them.I am not here to prove or discredit anything. If I am asked to state why I adhere to theory or hypothesis, I will respond. I don't hold to mutation and natural selection being sufficient to produce the variety of creatures we enjoy on the planet, but I know there are some good reasons too suggest it did. I am after those reasons in this thread. I am not interested in debating the weaknesses as I see them with evolution here, but won't shy away if I am asked. ID has many questions too, and problems.The point of this thread is to find the best empirical reasons to side with step by step slow building of organisms. Homology and morphology I can see the logic to conclude common ancestry. Is there any empirical evidence? ID is continually slammed for not producing empirical evidence. The question of this thread is, Do you have any? I will take TWO.Edited by idscience, : No reason given.

I am sorry, was there a cite source in there anywhere? Hey guys, why am I the only one who is asked to cite source? Here is a guy making all sorts of claims and blanket statements and no one is calling him on it. Here is a guy who has no rational retort to my stated positions, other than bigotry and insults. Yet, no one calls him on it. Interesting!I did cite a source from 1994 that suggested the so called junk DNA had function. I didn't see any source in your reply that predates that, or one that shows who did make the discovery. I don't think you are interested in discussion, so I won't be replying to your rants. There not bad, but they are for another thread.

Theodore!
I am going to say this sllllllllooooooooooowwwwly for you. The thread was not a request for a discussion. No where in the title or description does it say this is a debate to debunk.It is very simple....Does anyone, any where on here have any empirical evidence of anything other than variation within a species? I would like to know?When someone has an actual answer to my question, I will respond.

wow, that was specific, thanks. I don't see any papers there but if I did, I suspect 99.9 would consist of variations within a species, or drug resistant bacteria,
fruit flies with 2 useless wings,
moths that changed color,
beeks that grow and shrink again,
more bacteria
more bacteria
more bacteriafollowed by
this is what we don't know
this is surprising but it sheds now light
this sheds new light
missing link
missing link
missing linkEdited by idscience, : No reason given.

No.

I will give that a read, I missed your post. Edited by idscience, : No reason given.