Macro-Evolution is correct

I flatly deny agreeing to that note made by Pro. Accepting that note would imply that I agree to the fallacy of composition [1]. I will make two arguments to show why evolution is not correct. The first would be about genetics, and the second would be about paleontology. I. Genetics I.a. Mutations and the evolution connection. The cause and effect of mutations have been widely studied. I will concentrate mainly on the effects of mutations. The net effect of all mutations is harmful to an organism"s genetic information. Stanford, J. C. has pointed this out in his book Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome. He also noted that mutations can be either degenerative or beneficial and that there is no such thing as a "neutral" mutation. Let me put this in simple English. Suppose the phrase, "Methinks it is a weasel" has a mutation in that one of its letters was changed. The information would still probably be interpretable. If there were more than a few changes, however, the information would not be understood. The situation is clearly more complicated for frameshift mutations, additions, and deletions and I will not go into them, but I think the analogy is sufficient for Pro to understand the concept. The situation, however, is more complicated than that. The average number of mutations created from generation to generation is around 100-200 [2]. This is reproductive mutations. Out of every cell division, there is around ~3 mutations per human cell division. This effectively means that within the evolutionary time-scale, we should have been dead 100 times over [3]. Even if, granted, natural selection selected against degradational mutations, there would be almost no beneficial mutations to select for. Sanford has noted that I.b. "Junk DNA" Junk DNA is the section of the DNA that does not code for proteins. It was mostly thought of as "useless" portions of the genome. Until very recently, junk DNA theory was upheld, and still is upheld in some circles [4]. Evolution predicts that some portions of the DNA would become useless (Information not from [4]) and therefore the genome would reflect this. Therefore, when scientists first discovered noon-protein DNA codes, they assumed immediately that what they were seeing was the leftovers from evolution. The ENCODE project has shown this to be false [5]. Junk DNA is actually the regulatory portion of the DNA. Some of the purposes of the regulatory DNA determines the organism"s body plan, how much enzymes are produced, and in what quantity. There is further evidence that mutations leads to cancers, disease, and other things which I will, hopefully, expand on in the round. The dangers of mutation indicate that species would have died long before they could have evolved sufficiently to create new species. (The giving of a new name to a population of organisms does not mean there is a new species. In fact, wrongly identifying "new" species of dinosaurs seem to be a fad. [6][7] show that half of all the dinosaurs have been wrongly identified and given new names.) In conclusion for this section. There is simply no evidence from the genome that evolution could have occurred. II. Paleontology II.a. The Opisthotonic pose This pose is illustrated in the picture [8]. In [9], the authors conclude that this could not be the result of postmortem water transport because they did experiments on quail. "It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic posture is the result of "death throes," not postmortem processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes." This year, scientists did an experiment by placing chicken in cool fresh water and the chickens exhibited the pose [10]. There is contradiction between the two studies, but salt may have played a role. Besides all of these, water sediment is almost always found with the fossil [11]. How could there be water sediment if the dinosaurs died from meteor impacts? Evolution is unable to give an answer. II.b. Transitional fossils In order not to fall for the fossil gaps fallacy, where after finding one fossil, the skeptic claims, "Aha! Now there are two gaps!" I will note that there is many transitional fossil candidates. The one I see most often is the example of the Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik is supposed to be the transitional organism between fish and tetrapods. Tiktaalik supposedly came from 375 mya. However, tetrapod tracks from 18 mya before that have been found [12]. This is inexplicable via evolutionary theory. General Conclusion: I must thus conclude that the facts opposes evolution. If the facts opposes evolution, then evolution is not correct. I await your response. 1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 4. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... (See here a blog blasting the ENCODE projectand supporting "junk DNA") 5. http://www.genome.gov... (Also see this semi-comprehensive non-technical news article on the subject, http://www.guardian.co.uk..., and a more technical one: http://www.sciencemag.org...) 6. http://www.nature.com... 7. http://www.psjournals.org... 8. http://www.stemftw.com... 9. http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org... 10. http://www.newscientist.com... 11. http://www.jstor.org... 12. http://www.nature.com...