I can't find any proof of macro-evolution. What should I do?

Answer 1

What we used to call adaptation science has renamed micro-evolution. I think they did that in order to have "proof" that evolution is real.. Well, it's still adaptation and proves nothing. There is no proof for either idea Creation or Evolution.. Here is a explanation from a noted scientist that casts dought of spontanious creation.. I thought that you would be intrested.... Jim

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science
in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain
everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

Answer 2

Look for proofs of micro evolution and then count them up as one big evolution. Then you shall have your macro evolution.

Answer 3

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.
However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in allele frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.

Answer 4

There is no proof of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, however, cannot be denied.
Sorry.

Answer 5

Keep performing experiments and gathering information.

That's what all the other scientists are doing.

Answer 6

Find proof for God first. And don't give us that just-look-at-the-sky- and-the-animals-and-birds baloney. Give us God in a jar and we can start talking.

Answer 7

Keep searching.

Answer 8

Make something else insane up...scientists will believe anything...just like Mikey will eat anything.

Answer 9

Quit wasting your time i guess.

Answer 10

Study harder.