DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[libalchris]

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
"Extinct" is defined as "having no living descendants."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/extinct?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.or...Extinction

Congratulations! You learned to look something up! Now do the same for "speciation." The fossils we find are rarely the direct ancestors of organisms today. We usually only find the cousins of the direct ancestors (you can learn all about that if you'd actually read about speciation!) Of course when looking up the definition of extinction rather than going to a dictionary that gives the non-biological definition, you might want to look up how scientists define extinction. That is, the end of a species.

The fossils record does not show any animals evolving from something else. All it shows is similarities. Your position is that the similarities between Ambulocetus and modern whales proves macroevolution occurred. You are using what's known as homology theory to prove macroevolution. Homology theory is flawed, as explained by the following source.

You're right. I guess God just created the a sequence of fossils showing change from one species to the next and put them IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT ORDER IN THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN.

Notice the words in bold and red within the quoted text. Do you see the dishonest science that's indicated there? Pro-evolution scientists cherry pick similarities in various animals and focus only on the similarities as their proof of macroevolution. At the same time, they ignore or explain away differences.

You clearly don't have a fucking clue what homology is or how it works. You seem to think all homology means is "some similarity." It is much more than that. It's similarities in structures that perform completely different tasks. Like hands and wings for example.

Each animal, though very different, uses the same bones for a variety of function. This can't be considered "conservation of design" or whatever because these bones perform completely different tasks, as a designer easily could have used a variety of bone designs that would have really presented a problem for the theory of evolution.

Another example is that ear-bones began as reptile jaw bones. We are obviously very different from reptiles, but we can still find homologies.

OF COURSE there's going to be differences in organisms! If there weren't it wouldn't be evolution! If you look at closely related organisms (humans and chimps for example) You find similarities. If you look at two organisms that are extremely distant relatives you won't find much similarity, but the deeper you look the more similarity you find. The point is that you see changes and transitions in the fossil record that
a. don't defy evolutionary explanations (the changes that occur are not impossible)
b. are found in the right order (this is essential, because transitional fossils would mean nothing if you found the modern whale before its ancestors even started evolving)
c. contain homologies that give clues as to the evolution of the organism

Now, you can continue to sit here and tell me that although the transitional fossils share similarities, they're not actually related, but if you do you're simply denying the evidence.

I'll ask you one more time

1. What would it take to convince you of macroevolution?
2. What is the limiting factor in evolution (what causes organisms to have limited change?)