No, That's Microevolution

In the macroarticle 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution under the subsection "Universal Common Descent Defined", the folks at Talkorigins.org define and attempt to support one of the fundamental hypotheses within the Macroevolutionary model. I will examine this article in detail and show that all they really have evidence for is Microevolution and only assume Macro. Remember, they have already allowed for the distinction of terms. 
==What is Universal Common Descent?==
Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. 
I appreciate the correct use of the word hypothesis here.
Just to state this in other words, Macroevolution teaches that all organisms ever living on Earth that they know of are descended from the same single organism a long time ago. Ultimately every living thing can trace its lineage back to the same ancestor.
All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. 
Continuing their definition, the make a number of points that are important to note:
* All existing species - species is an artificial and poorly defined word and one that is man made. What really is a species? The most general definition of species is a category of organism that is incapable of breeding viable offspring with another category of organism, even if they have a large number of phenotypical and genotypical similarities. E.g. roses cannot reproduce with donkeys.
* Originated gradually...on a geological timescale - While they don't precisely tell you what these mean here, what they are saying is that it took millions of years to get from the single organism that was the first organism to all the complexity and diversity of life that exists today. Why this is important is that the fundamental hypothesis of Universal Common Descent is inextricably and irreducibly linked with the Ancient Earth hypothesis. When an Evolutionists attempts to compartmentalize and disassociate the two concepts, they are lying or grossly ignorant of what they are arguing for.
* By biological, reproductive process - either sexual or asexual reproduction rather than artificial or supernatural process.
Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material).
So here they give a "broad definition" of species, but it is not a precise one. "Communal population" means what, that they live together and share things? I live with the bacteria in my body. "Exchanging genetic information", yeah, I do this with my food. Does this mean I'm the same species as the carrots I grow in my garden?
Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. 
And that's microevolution.
Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). 
Again we see the dependence on long periods of time, though they try to compartmentalize macroevolution away from ancient Earth models.
Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.
One of the severe constraints imposed is that alleged macroevolution is not observable, only micro.
So gradualness is not what happens in evolution, only related to how long those processes take. These time scales impose limitations on these alleged multi-generational changes necessary for macroevolution. The requirement of long periods of time (even though evolution has nothing to do with old earth) also limits what processes are available to the actual components required for macroevolution, among them common descent (macroevolution) and adaptation (microevolution).
== Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories ==
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. 
Again, the admission here of a distinctiveness is important. What it disallows is the honest convolution or conflating of the two ideas of macro and micro and makes macro stand on its own without help or harm to or from micro. This is a very powerful admission that needs to remain consistent.
Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation.
And so they aren't consistent immediately because in the very next sentence they say that macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time...unless the word "Microevolutionary" is a typo, which might make more sense.
These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. 
Each of which will be examined individually, I imagine. Please note that "theories of speciation" rely squarely on the definition of species, which they do not have a precise definition for.
The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. 
So right here we begin with admitted assumptions. Among themselves, these may be fine starting assumptions. For a website, and in general for Macroevolutionists trying to convince the skeptic or nay-sayer, these are not assumptions that can be allowed. Take for example: The fundamentals of geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct. Really? And what are those? That the Earth is millions of years old? I do not allow that assumption. If Macroevolution is built on the foundation of long geological time scales, then you must first prove that to make your case. They can't. They have no evidence to support these millions of years of geological time. What they submit as evidence is grossly flawed and based on numerous assumptions that cannot be allowed.
However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Indeed.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
In essence, common descent is distinct and independent of the other components that add up to macroevolution. We can examine common descent alone and if it falls, then the other mechanisms are irrelevant because the fundamental premise of common descent will have been shown to be false. Let's proceed.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. 
Macroevolution is independent of abiogenesis in the way that downs in football are independent of the kickoff. It's a disingenuous compartmentalizing here. Just like macroevolution needs long periods of time (longer even than they proclaim), macroevolution needs abiogenesis to be true. If abiogenesis is not true, then macroevolution, especially atheistic macroevolution has some severe problems just getting to the starting line. YES, it is acknowledge that the process of abiogenesis is not technically PART of macroevolution. It is, however, a prerequisite and therefore not an assumption we can allow. It is assumed here. If its not true, then macroevolution is simple to show to be false. Hopefully they will examine it elsewhere.
All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
In fact, without God, there can be no explanation of the ultimate origin of anything: time, space, matter, energy, or life. But they are making excuses and assumptions here and trying to make it sound reasonable.
== What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent? ==
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
This is what is called observational science. It's what most people think of when they think of science and scientists. Empirical testability is the hallmark of observational science. Unfortunately for them, common descent isn't testable at all. They say that theories (by which they mean hypotheses) are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data, yet that's the only thing they can do with common descent. How do you empirically test something that allegedly takes a minimum of thousands of years, if not millions? How do you make predictions today and test those outcomes?
No, what their "evidence" will come down to is exactly what they said is insufficient, an alleged logical compatibility with the available data and nothing more.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".
It is important to understand the extent to which testing and falsification can go and what those limits are. They've already admitted some of those above. I cover more of this in my definitions page. Generally speaking, though, I agree with their specific analysis of solipsism.
In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 150+ years of intense scientific investigation.
Each of these will be examined individually.
It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.
*hypothesis
But I digress.
To say that macroevolution is not assumed a priori is a very bold assertion. That assertion is going to be severely tested in the articles to come and shown that, in fact, the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to assume it. Once cannot put together the whole of biology without knowledge of macroevolution and suddenly arrive at macroevolution as a demanded conclusion. Darwin didn't do it. Neither has anyone else. All they have given us is microevolution and macro is assumed every time.
We will show this in the articles to come.
== Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations? ==
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
In other words, the atheists and those who compromise with them voted and agreed that the Scientists would not accept anything else as scientific. What this paragraph amounts to is a very well crafted assertions with a numbered list to make it sound legitimate. Reminds me of this.
When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.
How magnanimous of you. Let us begin.
== Navigation ==
Main Page
* Refuting Arguments For Macroevolution
** Introduction
** Definitions
** No, That's Microevolution
** Sorry, You Just Made That Up
** More Than One Interpretation
** Phylogenetics Introduction
** Unity of life
** Nested hierarchies
** Convergence of independent phylogenies
** Transitional forms
** Chronology of common ancestors
** Anatomical vestiges (Vestigial Organs)
** Atavisms
** Molecular vestiges
** Ontogeny and developmental biology
** Present biogeography
** Past biogeography
** Anatomical parahomology
** Molecular parahomology
** Anatomical convergence
** Molecular convergence
** Anatomical suboptimal function
** Molecular suboptimal function
** Protein functional redundancy
** DNA functional redundancy
** Transposons
** Redundant pseudogenes
** Endogenous retroviruses
** Genetic Change
** Morphological Change
** Functional Change
** The strange past
** Stages of speciation
** Speciation events
** Morphological rates
** Genetic rates