Summations Only

I am interested in todays best evidence for macro-evolution. With the phylogentic tree falling apart, and the failures of bacteria experiments to produce organisms with significant information gain, I am wondering if there is anything else evolution has to offer.The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.I don't accept homology and morphology as evidence as it is inference without testability, and a circular argument. The same evidence could infer common design. Common components over a varied selection of organisms as well as similar building codes (hox genes, DNA) suggest to many common design.I am interested in hard evidence that moves macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory? Evidence of the same standard that is demanded from intelligent design science. I look forward to the responses.

Thread copied here from the Best Evidence Macro-Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

So you reject homology and morphology as evidence for ID as well.Is that correct?I'd also be interested in an explanation of your claim of circularity, particularly in light of the confirming evidence found in the fossil record.As your post stands, you seem to be attempting to poison the evidentiary well with bare assertion.

I would say homology and morphology is equally supportive of common descent and common design. I can certainly see the association, and it is logical to see. Common ancestor and common design would be very difficult to distinguish, if at all.I would say homology is a good case to infer common ancestor. The circular reasoning I see is, because evolution is a fact, similar structures and systems show relationship to common ancestors. Because the fossil record shows the relationships with common ancestors, evolution is a fact.Because homology isn't evidence, but inference and conjecture, it is inconclusive and cannot be used to dogmatically state evolution is a fact. In my opinion. ID could make the same claim.The fossil record shows similarities between organisms. The rest is assumption based on the predetermined belief it is evolution that caused this similarity.Edited by idscience, : addingEdited by idscience, : added

Hello idscience, and welcome to the fray. What is macroevolution?A definition used by science (biology, evolution) please, along with a reference so we can check your sources. Assertion without substantiation. What are your references? Again, what is macroevolution?We need you to define this so that we know if we are talking about the same thing. What you don't accept is irrelevant, opinion is apparently completely unable to alter reality in any significant way.What the evidence shows is what is relevant. Again, what is your definition, and what do you expect to see for evidence to meet your definition? Then we will review your definition to see how it matches what is used in science, and then we can see if your expectations are based on a false definition or not.Enjoy.

The best evidence of Macro Evolution as a fact is that we can look around us and see the diversity, and also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.The ONLY explanation that explains what we see is the Theory of Evolution.There have been claims of "common design" but so far no evidence has ever been presented that supports the existence of any designer or of any model or method that designer might use.Until that happens the idea of design should be put at the same standing as pixie dust.

Hello again idscience So is it a testable difference?We can test for homology and morphology occurring in lab experiments, field experiments, the DNA record and the fossil record.Can we test for common design? What would we expect from common design that we would not see from common descent?Enjoy

Lets start with the 5 best examples that meet your definition of macro-evolution.As far as the only contention between ID and Evo is this hypothesis, it would be rather lengthy and I must say irregular to cite proof for agreement? ID agrees variation within a species is a fact, and that natural selection is a known mechanism for limited change. No arguments there so what do you want me to cite?Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...a-clue-how-life-beganUniverse: Hawking believing that universes can create themselves from nothing because of laws like gravity exist, is an indicator to me that is pretty much up in the air. So what is left to argue about? common ancestry.

The Gish Gallop continues.What in this post is a definition of Macroevolution? You were asked for a definition. Instead you throw more crap against the wall. Nothing stuck. It is your topic. It would be nice if you stayed on topic. But alas I am sure it is to much to ask.

Genetics, morphology, biogeography, the fossil record, that sort of thing. ... without any actual scientists noticing this remarkable event ... ... something that creationists are unable or unwilling to define ... You mean, apart from consistency with all the facts? No, in that respect it is in just the same boat as every other scientific theory. Try telling that to Michael Behe. That would be a more compelling argument if it meant anything.

And if saying things made them true, creationists would long since have achieved victory, as would flat-earthers. You seem to have failed to understand the argument. This leaves you in a different position from scientists, who do.

Hi again idscience. Not how it works: you made an assertion. In order to be able to discuss whether or not it is a valid assertion we need to know if you understand what you are talking about.You need to provide the definition of macroevolution. With references so that we can check them.Otherwise we can be talking at cross-purposes.So step up: define macroevolution.We start with your definition. Which has nothing to do with evolution, macro or micro, so we are getting the impression that you don't have a clue for what macroevolution is ....Do you know what the gish gallop is? It's a dishonest creationist trick to keep from answering question.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : gishing

So for you, the best evidence is that the world has different varieties of life in it, and the fossil record pretty much shows us what we see today? This is your scientific evidence?
You say there have been claims of common design but no evidence. You are claiming evidence for evolution that is subjective, and can be used for common design. The only reason it can't is because you say it can't. Common components are used all the time by engineers, and designers. There is evidence to some, from what is known about intelligent actions. Digital coding in DNA, and the regulatory systems and the language and building plans used to construct organisms. I am not saying any of this proves ID but certainly it suggests further investigation. Certainly there is enough that ignorant personal attacks, ridicule and mocking is unwarranted.to summarily throw out ID as so much "pixie dust" is short sighted. To say ID has to explain all the answers for a designer is absurd, and doesn't negate any evidence suggesting an intelligent agent involvement.

Hi again idscience, Indeed.Can you tell me what we would see from such sharing of design that we would not see from common descent?Enjoy.

Nothing is being tested. All that is observed is similarities. DNA in fossils shows similarity. How do you test for morphology in past events?I would expect similar components and systems in organisms that don't seem to fit branches of the tree. Seemingly different unrelated creatures with common components would suggest a possible design. For example, an RFID for your car ignition, and the same controller for an industrial door lock. Very similar system or component but unrelated otherwise.