- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Bring the noise, I know what macro-evolution is: The hypothesis that the same processes which work in micro-evolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism.
For macro-evolution to be true, it would have to add information to an organisms genetic code allowing it to change from its previous limits. When Darwin made his hypothesis on evolution they had not yet studied biology to extent that we have today and did not know about this. But lets say some kind of radiation or something else changed an organisms genetic code, and lets say that organism was the single aquatic cell which is believed to have evolved into everything. If this is the case we should be digging up fossils of all kinds of missing links which would bridge the gap between a single aquatic cell and the Hundreds of Thousands of organsisms that exist today, but the fact is we haven't. Not one valid, proven missing link has been found. We have found an aboundance of fossils from all sorts of creatures, but none have been found in the long history of the earth that bridge the gap between them. I challange you to show me one "missing link" that has not been proven false. Besides the proof in the Fossil record that evolution is false, we have the Geological cloumn aswell, one of Darwins biggest sources of evidence for his hypothesis:
When Darwin first studied this, he came to the conclusion that the farther down you go in the earths crust, the simpler things get. Now Darwin did not have the benifit of microscopic analysis or detailed explanations of how things work back then, if he did he would have known that there is no such thing as a simple life form, but forgeting that if you look at the geological column you will come to the conclusion that the farther down you go the simpler things are, just like Darwin. However the column you will most likely be shown in public schools and most other places is not what the column actualy looks like. 95% of the the fossils we turn up are clams, even as far down as the so called "simple liforms", thus the geoligical column realy only represents about 5% of the actual fossil record.
Therefore the evolutionists ignore the vast majority of the record and concentrate only on the organisms in their column. Another point against this is how the Strata(Distinct layers of rock in the earths crust) actualy formed. Most scientists today believed it all formed naturaly dust and dirt getting hardened by pressure and the sun over eons of time after which another layer of strata would form. Accepting this Darwin decided that the farther back in the earths crust something is, the older it is, which is realy a logical statement. However the problem with it and the whole idea of the geoligical column being good evidence for macroevolution is that scientists have observed catastrophies(such as volcanos erupting[which happen{ed/s} alot], erthquakes, floods etc.) that will lay down many layers of dirt and rock over a very short amount of time, so all these layers of strata could either have formed naturaly or have gotten moved around and formed by a great catastrophy(Noahs flood for creationists), or even just got realy mixed up by the natural occurance of smaller catastrophies. So already two of the key sources of evidence(the fossil record and the geological column) are either proven false or open to alot of contreversy.
Another earlier source of evidence for macro-evolution is strucural homology, back in Darwins time it was thought that Structural Homology provided evidence that evolution was real because if you compare the forearm of alot of creatures you will see that alot of them are similar in the types of bones they have. For example Man, the Bird and the Bat all have a humerus bone, a radius, an unla, carpals and a few others aswell. The problem is that with the advent of Mendelian Genetics scientists finialy were able to understand how organisms pass traits to eachother. If structural homology was the result of a common ancestry among organisms that fact should show up in the genetic code of organisms with similar traits. For example, the Bat, bird and Man should all have in the DNA similar parts of information regarding their forearms because the information would have come from the same common ancestor. But it doesn't, therefore providing evidence against evolution rather than for it.
I could go into this more, but I am tired and I doubt anyone will actualy read all this. And as for the big bang, I don't believe it happened, but if it did something would have to put the materials there to make it happen. I don't care what some scientist thinks.
[Edited on 4/20/2004 8:02:22 AM]