Provide one example of Macro-Evolution?

Question

Just one example where new information was added to DNA observed by science.

Nobody can provide one example. The only way evolution could be possible is if new information were added to the DNA.

Dogs are a case of micro evolution. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species. Self sustaining eolutionary jump, the mule is sterile how it is going to make the jump I have no clue.

Answer 1

It can't be done. Ever. Just like there is no transitional fossil records.

There are countless examples of micro-evolution, which is common in nature. Heck, even our livers completely change chemistry when alcohol or certain drugs are introduced.

Micro vs Macro. What cracks me up is that scientists think micro-changes reflect how macro is possible but they can't cite any.

No wonder, it is still a "theory" and Darwin himself said his theory was full of holes and week conclusions.

Answer 2

I have heard that everyone has at least a minimum number of mutations. I’m not sure of this number but I believe the average is around a dozen of so. As for evolution this process takes place over vast stretches of time. The split of one species to another happens via, mutation, natural selection, and isolation.

There are a few modern day species that I know of that I believe are in process of splitting into new species. The first is the Donkey and the Mule (related to the horse) which cannot reproduce its offspring when combined. I believe these two animals to be in the last stages of splitting off into new species.

The Second is the Dog which has tremendous variety within its species. If it weren’t for (wo)mankind and his/her transient moving patterns I believe the dog would have isolated enough that over time we would see many new species. I believe the Coyote and Wolf to be two close relatives that are a little more advanced down the line of this process.

I believe monkeys to be like dogs in that they have tremendous variety within their species. I include man in this class. Look at all the races, Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks, Indians, Eskimos, Polynesians, Aborigines, etc. I believe if we remained remote from each other geographic areas of origin our genetics would have bottlenecked to the point of not being about to reproduce and new species would have occurred. Who knows they still might if we bring ourselves back to the Stone Age via nuclear war, global warming, meteor collision, etc.

What I really can’t understand is why so many fundamentalist are set on the idea that God had to create creation with the snap of is fingers and *poof* it was all there fully formed. Even the bible states a day is like a thousand years and there were many metaphors scattered about enough to cause an intelligent person to pause (i.e. the four corners of the earth) and give consideration before jumping to the literal conclusion in any given passage.

We were not born in a poof of smoke, we evolved from a single egg and sperm that through the various stages grew into the adults that we are now. Does it not make sense that even creation also is taking time to evolve? God is not like Genie from Bewitched who simply wiggles his/her nose and ~ boink ~ it appears. Be reasonable and do not evade the evident that is right before your very eyes. I acknowledge there is a God, now be big enough to acknowledge the subtleties of the creator you so revere.

Answer 3

I don' t think you understand what macroevolution is and I don't understand why a scientific concept is in the religion section.

Macroevolution is not 'new information added to DNA'. Macroevolution is a change that leads to speciation.

Frequently scientists are finding species that used to be able to reproduce with each other that now are unable to, due to macroevolution and speciation. There are plants and animals that fall into this category. The Cape Buffalo drifted so far from it's relatives that it can no longer interbreed with local cattle.

And how about the simple fact that Humans have over 98% of the same DNA as Chimps? Did a god choose to make them so similar to us or did they evolve from a common ancestor? The rate of mutation can be traced back to a common ancestor.

Frankly, there is more proof of evolution, speciation, and 'macroevolution' than there is of *any* god, so all this 'proof and evidence' from religious naysayers is quite ironic. Evoution is based on far more than faith, but it takes not allowing oneself to be spoonfed fallacies and realizing that there can be a god and still be evolution. The two concepts need not be mutually exclusive.

Answer 4

Macroevolution usually requires hundreds or thousands of years to occur. Darwin lived in the 19th century. Not enough time has passed for it to occur. It's not something that happens in a single lifetime.

Look at a question you once asked: Why do people ask questions if they're not going to accept the answers. You just seem to be trying to reject all the info being given to you just because it comes from evolutionists.

Answer 5

Do not get me wrong on the issue; but did you get the idea from D. James Kennedy's program in the last few days? Do you know what macro-evolution is?

Answer 6

I guess none of you have heard about the bacteria that can now eat nylon. Since that material didn't exist 100 years ago, it would be interesting to hear your hypothesis about how that came about. Did God design them millions of years ago to eat a material that didn't exist?

Answer 7

There are no examples. Evolution is only a theory with no substantiating proof...

Answer 8

I agree with Mike, he said it right.