Macro-evolution is a Myth

On the New Genes Up-to-date, scientific research offered only two macro-evolution mechanisms: Transposons- able to move or copy itself from one chromosome to another. By this, a new gene may exists in a genome. Polyploidy - genome duplicates itself. By this, a new gene may exists in a genome. SOURCE: http://science.howstuffworks.com... Response: Even though a transposon is able to move or copy itself from one chromosome to another and polyploidy duplicates its genes , both still do not show speciation above the species level (i.e. Genus) but rather, both affirm micro-evolution. In fact, Charles Darwin's contribution to the scientific hypothesis of biological evolution is none other than micro-evolution. The proof of this is that he did not even know modern genetics. Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern science of genetics,has his works accepted as a scientific fact not until the early 20th century ( ca. 1900). It must be noted also that common structures does not automatically mean common ancestry because genes are inherited, not structures. Hence, we, again, need to know how is information added into a pre-existing genome?This question entails another one, how do the first cells came into existence? This is the same as how did the new genes in a gemone came into existence?Up-t0-date, this is what we have: ? --> First Replicators --> RNA --> DNA Fossils does not show macro-evolution. In order for a fossil to reveal a macro-evolution kind of speciation, it needs to be seen as a transitional fossil because "biological evolution isn't like a ladder but a tree, that is, evolution is descent with modification"[1]. [1]http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Evidence: Archaeopteryx Macro-evolutionists taught us that birds evolved from reptiles. Response: Archaeopteryx cannot have been the forerunner of birds since birds were already in existence.http://books.google.com.ph... I do agree with Predictions in science. It is based on logical premises of a future outcome of a,for example, natural phenomenon like biological evolution. Science works on induction and hence, scientific method is then used to see if this hypothesis works. Conclusion: The problem with macro-evolution is that it isn't observable because humans live ephemerally. Macro-evolution is the supposed result of continuous micro-evolution over a long period of time. I do believe that biological evolution is inevitable. Micro-evolution is inevitable but can we say the same thing to Macro-evolution? No. Probably not yet. It is because there is no biological mechanism that point towards the hypothesis of Macro-evolution's sort of speciation. Conclusion: If the scientific consensus over the matter of biological evolution has yet to find out the mechanisms in macro-evolution, then, what could Con present as a mechanism for this macro-evolution? I like how HowStuffWorks of Discovery Company put it this way: In answering the open questions that still remain unsolved, the theory of evolution will either become complete or it will be replaced by a new theory that better explains the phenomena we see in nature. That is how the scientific process works. http://science.howstuffworks.com...