MicroEvolution vs MacroEvolution

Has MacroEvolution really never been observed? Have scientists really never seen one "kind" evolve into another "kind"? Surely information can't ever been added to the genome by unintelligent processes.

To download this video copyright free please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?nkn4lyzgdyt

To download the paper shown in this video please go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?tzmwzyn4wmt

Here is the TalkOrigins page on MacroEvolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

And the page on speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And remember to always, Think about it.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• Creation
• Religion
• God
• Speciation
• Information
• Genome
• DNA
• Kind
• Answers
• Genesis
• Macro
• Micro
• Fact
• Education
• Dog
• Cat
• cdk007

[updr12]

@MrGralgrathor "now that I've listed (for the zillionth time) the many independent lines of evidence"

You have? Where?

[MrGralgrathor]

@updr12

"bold claim"

So, now that I've listed (for the zillionth time) the many independent lines of evidence that independently support common descent - let's have yours. What evidence (independently verifiable observation) goes against common descent?

[updr12]

@XGralgrathor There is absolutely nothing that confirms common descent, so why would anyone call that unreasonable to reject? Just making a bold claim does not weigh much in a discussion such as this. You know this as well as I do, so why try to sneak past a silly comment like that?

[XGralgrathor]

@updr12

"as long as"

Common descent is presented as a hypothesis that has been confirmed to such an extent that it is now entirely unreasonable to reject it. Which means it might as well be called 'fact'.

[updr12]

@MrGralgrathor Of course, I agree fully. There is nothing wrong with having a hypothesis, as long as it is presented as such. 

[MrGralgrathor]

@updr12

"what we cannot observe"

Remember that the testability of a hypothesis usually does not rely on direct observation. In order to test a hypothesis, we must be able to ask and answer the questions:

- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?

- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were accurate?

- What would we expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?

- What would we not expect to observe if our hypothesis were not accurate?