Macroevolution is most likely true

Hopefully we can make this out to be an interesting and intellectually stimulating debate. Considering Wrrichcirw's own admission that he knows very little concerning evolution, I shall do as best I can to present my information in a simple, non-technical manner. Unfortunately, an 8,000 character limit is not nearly sufficient enough to cover the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of macroevolution; however, I shall nevertheless do my best to present what I believe are some of the most convincing pieces of evidence available. Protein Functional Redundancy:There are some proteins that all living organisms require in order to survive, such as cytochrome c; such universal genes are called ubiquitous genes. Something interesting about ubiquitous genes is that there are a countless amount of sequences that can allow a gene to perform the same function. To illustrate this simply, imagine that the sequence 1234 can perform the same essential function as 2431, as can a nearly infinite number of alternate sequences; therefore, there is no particular reason for two different species to share the same sequence to perform the same function (this has been proven by taking cytochrome c sequences from other species and putting them in yeast. Although yeast possesses a very different cytochrome c sequence, it still operates perfectly when its native sequence is deleted and replaced with a foreign sequence [1]). Moreover, ubiquitous genes, such as cytochrome c, have no correlation to an organism's physical makeup (phenotype); therefore, even though humans and apes, for example, look very much alike physically, such similarities would have no affect on each species' cytochrome c sequence [2]. To reiterate, 1) there are certain genes which all living organisms on earth share, 2) these ubiquitous genes share no correlation to an organism's physical makeup, 3) there are essentially an infinite amount of sequences that can perform the same function, 4) therefore, there is no reason for two different species to have the same sequence to perform the same function unless they have both inherited that particular combination from a common ancestor [3]. Therefore, it is interesting to learn that humans and chimpanzees share the exact same cytochrome c sequence. The chances of this happening randomly are 1 out of 10^93 [4]. The only logical explanation is that apes and humans share a common ancestor, and therefore have inherited the same cytochrome c sequence. In fact, it has been observed that the most distantly related a particular species is, the more it gradually differs in the sequences which comprise its genes [5]. Endogenous Retroviruses:An endogenous retrovirus, simply put, is a molecular remnant from a past parasitic viral infection; for example, in humans, particular sequences of DNA code are found within our genome that are unmistakable leftovers from past viral infections. These viruses remain in the human genome as they are passed down and inherited from one descendant to the next [6]. This inevitably leads us to ask the question of how a virus can become an inheritable part of the human genome; the answer is relatively simple -- a retrovirus must infect a living organism, make a DNA copy of its own viral genome and insert it specifically into the organism's germ cell line (which produces sperm and eggs); if this is accomplished, the retrovirus will become an inheritable part of an organism's DNA. Note that this process as a whole is extremely rare and relatively random [7]. Considering this information, we can assume that if two organisms share the same endogenous retroviruses in the same chromosomal locations, there is an immensely large probability that they are both biologically related, as the only alternative explanation is that each organism obtained the same kinds of retroviruses in the same chromosomal locations independently (a highly unlikely possibility). Therefore, it is interesting to know that 16 endogenous retroviruses have hitherto been discovered which are shared between apes and humans in the same chromosomal locations. The chances of humans and apes obtaining these sixteen endogenous retroviruses independently are 1 in 2,057,400 followed by 135 zeros (so unlikely that it can't even be reasonably considered); hence, the only logical alternative is a common ancestor between apes and humans which passed down the virus to both species. If one accepts the common ancestor explanation as true, the chance of humans and apes sharing said 16 endogenous retroviruses becomes 1 [Video provided on top]. Atavisms:"An atavism is the reappearance of a lost character specific to a remote evolutionary ancestor and not observed in the parents or recent ancestors of the organism displaying the atavistic character [8]. "In other words, human tails and dolphin hind limbs are examples of atavisms. There are many examples of atavisms. For example, consider the following figure:Figure 1.0 Provided by . http://www.talkorigins.org...As can be seen from the above photograph, dolphins have been found with hind limbs. This is perfectly consistent with the evolutionary teaching that dolphins and whales descend from land-dwelling mammals. There have also been documented reports of humans growing tails and whales with legs [9]. This provides strong evidence for macroevolution. Ontogeny:We also see evidence of macroevolution from embryology. Continuing with the subject of dolphins, consider the following photograph of a dolphin embryo:Figure 1.1 Provided by . http://www.talkorigins.org...The letter 'f' in the photograph points to the well-developed forelimb of the dolphin embryo, while the letter 'h' points to the well-developed hind limb. This happens in all dolphin embryos, providing strong evidence that dolphins descended from land-dwelling mammals which possessed hind limbs. There is much more evidence for macroevolution found in the field of embryology; for example, snake embryos also grow hind limbs, and human embryos develop tails which eventually regress, leaving only our tailbone behind [10]. Phenotype Comparison:Lastly, yet another piece of evidence for macroevolution comes from comparing the phenotypes of various organisms. Again, continuing with dolphins, consider their flipper bones:Figure 1.2 Provided by . http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org...As you can see, the flipper bones of dolphins very much resemble the skeletal makeup of a hand. This strongly suggests that dolphins did not always have flippers, but rather evolved from land-dwelling mammals. Indeed, other water-dwelling animals with flippers that are not believed to have evolved from land-dwellers, such as sharks, do not share such physical similarities with land-dwelling mammals. Therefore, considering that evolution teaches that dolphins descended from land-dwelling mammals, it's easy to understand why the bones of dolphin flippers would look more like hands, while the bones of shark flippers would not. Bear in mind that the evidences I've provided are only brief over-glances of the topics discusssed. Much more can be said on these particular subjects alone; however, I do not have enough room remaining to continue; therefore, if possible, I will provide more evidence in my next argument, such as the the fossil record, vestigial structures, and observed instances of speciation. Therefore, considering all of the above mentioned evidence, I assert that macroevolution is most likely true. ________________________________________________________________________________________________[1] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] ibid. [3] ibid. [4] ibid. [5] ibid. [6] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[7] ibid. [8] . http://www.talkorigins.org...[9] ibid. [10] . http://www.talkorigins.org...http://www.youtube.com...