DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[libalchris]

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.

Uhoh, the text is getting bigger now.... I request we move to Defcon 2 for creationist meltdown.

Homology is just part of the whole picture, although even by itself it would be reasonably conclusive, if you are unconvinced by such things, I suggest you read up on additional evidence.

I suspect you think homology is just counting fingers and saying two species are related, but the relationship is even more simple than that.

There are genes in all living things which perform basic life functions. The sequence of proteins could be in a million different ways to perform the same function, and yet different species share these same ubiquitous genes.
There is only one observed function which copies similar sequences, and that is heredity, and I assume you aren't denying heredity exists.
Therefore it is a clear link between different organisms and a genealogical relationship.

We're not just counting fingers, you admit microevolution exists yes? How do we know? We can observe the heredity as it happens, at both a physiological, anatomical and molecular level.

The question is; especially at the molecular level, how do YOU explain similar protein patterns between grossly anatomically different organisms, in some cases where the protein is unnecessary, unless heredity was involved?

I don't think alter2ego understands that. The facts of homology on their own aren't enough to prove evolution, just to provide support for it. It's the summation of all the evidence pointing toward the same conclusion that makes common descent true. The fact that a man was in the house of a murder victim around the time she was killed isn't enough to prove the man did it. But if the man was also found with the murder weapon, an eye witness saw him leaving the house after hearing gunshots, and the man had sent the woman an email threatening to kill her, then you have a convincing case. It's like putting together a puzzle, any piece by itself doesn't make a picture, but enough pieces put together can make the picture very clear, even if it isn't complete.

One of the most convincing pieces of evidence from common descent represents just that concept, and that is phylogenetics. If you take the fossil record, you can use it to construct a phylogenetic tree, a tree of life. Now, if you take DNA similarity; that is, how much DNA different creatures share, you can use that to construct another phylogenetic tree. If you use embryology, you can construct another tree, same with ERVs, same with anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, and more.

Now first, let me mention how astounding it is that we can get even one phylogenetic tree from any of these different areas of biology. It simply only makes sense in the light of evolution. Take anatomy and homology for example. A designer would be able to mix and match certain characteristics, making it impossible to trace the evolution of an organism and construct a phylogenetic tree. An example of this is how only birds have feathers, and only mammals have mammary glands. If any mammal had avian feathers, it would absolutely destroy the theory of evolution, and the same if any bird had mammary glands. Now it is possible that a mammals could evolve something like feathers, or birds something like mammary glands, (such is the study of convergent evolution) but the only similarity would be that they shared similar function, a careful study of the adaptation would reveal that they are fundamentally different.

Now, what is even more astounding, and what acts as undeniable proof of evolution is that if you take these phylogenetic trees according to all the different areas of biology, they all line up PERFECTLY. A full tree cannot be constructed from all the areas, but there is a TON of overlap, and they all line up perfectly. There are only two possible explanations for this:
1. All organisms are descended from a common ancestor as the theory of evolution states
2. A designer wanted to fool us so made it look as though all organisms descended from a common ancestor.

Take your pick.