Scientific Evidence Supports Macroevolution

My apologies for not including my footnotes in round 1; here they are: 1 M"ller F and O"Rahilly R., "The primitive streak, the caudal eminence and related structures in staged human embryos," Cells Tissues Organs. 177(1):2-20, 2004 2 John Alan Kiernan and Murray Llewellyn Barr, Barr"s The Human Nervous System: An Anatomical Viewpoint, Ninth Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008, p. 5 3 Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590. Phenotype Comparison Predictions are supposed to predate the evidence which fulfills them; but evolutionists have put the carriage before the horse, working backwards from the evidence to lead to the prediction. Darwin theorized common descent because of similarities between species, therefore, such similarities were never true predictions of the theory. How could the similarities suggest the theory, and the theory predict the similarities? This is circular reasoning. People have known the skeletal make up of dolphins, sharks and mammals from the time of man"s first hunting these animals for food. Thus, we can"t truly predict what they should look like because we already knew. That would be like a wife predicting what her husband should look like after they have already been married for 10 years. Macroevolution never predicted that because sharks didn"t descend from land-dwelling mammals that their flippers wouldn"t look like hands; rather, it used the fact that they flippers don"t look like hands as proof they didn"t descend from land-dwelling mammals. This isn"t a prediction, just a convenient fact. And if sharks were found with flippers looking like hands, evolutionists would merely adjust the phylogenic tree to accommodate them. ERVs The theory of evolution was around long before the discovery of endogenous retroviruses [ERVs], and in none of that pre-ERV literature was it predicted that ERVs would be found in the same chromosomal locations in two or more species. This is but another example of taking an observation, claiming it as a prediction of evolution, and then using the fact the observation fits the prediction as evidence for the truth of evolution. There are no examples of ERVs shared between mammals and other creatures on the phylogenic tree, making the theory inadequate to support universal common descent. More importantly, many transposable elements mislabeled ERVs were found to have functions, repudiating the claim of random retrovirus insertion. Studies on mice embryos showed that transposable elements including ERVs as a subset control the level and sequence of gene expression during embryo development. (Batten, D., No joy for junkies, Journal of Creation (TJ) 19(1):3, 2006) "We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5" untranslated regions." "Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome." (Conley et al., ref 1, pp. 1563, 1566) ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the human genome, acting as promoters transcribing at various starting points so that different RNA transcripts can rise from the same DNA sequence. As similar sequences are found to be functional, the argument from shared mistakes in junk DNA evaporates. The requirements of functionality also implies that such DNA is not free to mutate at random. Macroevolution falsely assumes that mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species, but mutation doesn"t lead to new life. The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: "The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process." (1977), Vol. 10, p. 742. In over a hundred years of laboratory experiments no one has seen one species mutate into another. Variation within the kind always runs into the limits of variation, making macroevolution impossible. When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, they could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage. (Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25) Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? Geneticist Dobzhansky said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it." (Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126) Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down? Mutations may change the color or texture of a person"s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever. Natural selection doesn"t create, it selects; but if mutation doesn"t create anything new for natural selection to select, new species cannot evolve. The fossil record doesn"t show a progressive change from one species to another. In fact, Darwin admitted it shows fully formed distinct species appearing abruptly with no intermediate links. (Ibid., pp. 83, 88, 91, 92) After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, no transitional links have ever been found. Paleontologist Alfred S."Romer noted Darwin"s statement about "the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear" and wrote: "Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system," said Darwin, "I can give no satisfactory answer." Nor can we today," said Romer. (Natural History, "Darwin and the Fossil Record," by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467) Professor of natural science John N."Moore reported on the results of an extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England : "Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. .".". Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. .".". Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor." Moore added: "No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred." (Should Evolution Be Taught? by John"N."Moore,"1970, pp. 9,"14,"24; New Scientist, "Letters," September"15,"1983, p. 798)