Macro-evolution Never Occured

On Mutation and Macro-EvolutionPro presented pure science.Con needs to read Pro's whole response:Hugo De Vries (1848-1935) demonstrated from his research on the evening primrose that dramatic new varieties and traits can arise suddenly without explanation. He and others believed that these macromutations finally gave evolutionists a mechanism for producing new genetic traits. Further research found De Vries's changes were not due to mutations, but unequal chromosome numbers in evening primroses that cause hybrid plants to appear, producing new varieties.The idea of macromutations was briefly resurrected in the 1940s by University of California Berkeley geneticist Richard Goldschmidt. He concluded that the origin of major new animal and plant varieties was due to "hopeful monsters," single mutations involving large and complex changes. We now know that hundreds or thousands of mutations are required to produce all the changes needed to evolve a new animal order. Additionally, no satisfactory mechanism for macromutations has been proposed by modern neo-Darwinists.Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear -- neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information. "Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death. Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, the honor society for scientists, added that "many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation(purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!' I say" (Margulis, 2006, 194).Unless Con rebut what was presented, it cannot be said that the response is null and void but only as it is, remained unrefuted. Is there any unscientific in what was presented? Heaven forbid.On the Transitional Fossils and Science The supposed transitional fossils are not "transitional" fossils at all.The reason is that all of the supposed transitional fossils are fully formed and hence, it is obviously not transitional. "All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94 "The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley Instead of disagreeing with the scientists that is in agreement with my proposition, Con should rather have presented at least one transitional fossil that is without any shadow of doubt a transitional fossil acknowledged by a scientific consensus.On Epigenetics and Biological EvolutionIn epigenetics, some evolution (change) may not depend on genes (unit of heredity) per se bur rather, on the epigenome (chemical markers) that turns on and off genes.This is basically new combination of genes (reshuffling = epigenetics) and not new genes coming into existence (macroevolution).Epigenetics occurs under natural conditions as well as by free volition of a sentient specie (e.g. homo sapiens sapiens). The change that happens at the epigenetic level is inheritable ( can be passed on from one generation to the next).Reference(s):http://steinhardt.nyu.edu...http://discovermagazine.com...http://www.livescience.com...On Gene Duplication and Macro-EvolutionSpeciation does occur within the microevolution level.Pro agrees.But Con assumed that the studies he cited is macroevolution at work.This is a logical fallacy of Non-sequitur.In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genesR13;mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creatureR13;merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.Truly, speciation never occured within the macroevolution level.What do you think about this scientific research? Tell me Con, is this unscientific?Reference(s): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.On the Transposons Con's argument:"Since transposons always results in a reorganization of an allele, it would necessarily follow that new alleles would be evolved from transposons-this new allele creates mutation to ultimately achieve speciation. If the opposition thinks that this argument is too "a priori" for him, a paper by Kloeckener-Gruisem in 1993 notes that in "the plant Antirrhinum...the expression of nivea is now under the control of a different gene [as a result of transposons]." In the same paper, it was noted that "[these transposons] led to an unusual pattern of gene expression: increased levels of enzyme activity in one organ, decreased levels in another, and almost unchanged levels in a third organ," which signify a change in allele behaviour."Pro's response:Indeed it is because HOW could a reorganization of an allele would inevitably cause new alleles? (macroevolution).The scientific literature Con proposes only and merely spoke of a change at the microevolution level.The reason is that transposons are essential parts of genomes and new combination (or may we borrow Con's word " reorganization ") is the change that transpires at transposon level.Reference:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Bio-ChemistryCon cannot escaped the fact that a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.Reference(s):Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry in the macro-evolution level.We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium.Yes.Humans and chimps may be similar but that does not mean that they came (origin) from a common ancestor in the macroevolution level.Common genome does not mean "of common descent".How much more is similar genome? It cannot be of common descent!