Quote (AkuuZ @ 16 Oct 2014 03:53)
it would be easier for you to share a support piece for macro evolution for me to reply on, rather than it as a whole, as there are many " evidences" for it
Ok then. Let's try this -
Macroevolution - Evolution that results in the formation of a new taxonomic group above the level of a species.
I'm going to break down my argument into four simple primary points that any layman can examine:
1) Fossil - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study the fossil record as a whole we should see an apparent and gradual change over time between different distinct species. For example, if we presume species X evolved from, or shares a common ancestor with species Y, over the course of Z years, we would expect to find fossil forms that change from X, to appearing to be X less and less like X and gradually more and more like Y, and those fossils should be independently dated and fit within the current hypothesis in terms of timescale.
2) Morphological - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between species, when we study currently living organisms, we should find various parts of the body that are "left over" parts, remnants from presumed previous ancestor species that those older species would have used for various specific purposes in their specific habitats, but currently have no known use or existing function for the current species in it's current habitat, or would have current uses that might be drastically different than their ancestors and were co-opted for other uses to adapt to different environments.
3) Genetic - If we were to examine the genomes of all living things, we should find patterns and similarities connecting different species and they would be related to the extent that the species are related. Like the fossil evidence, we should find patterns over time that fit into their respective time scales, and presumed relatives should share parts of their genomes that correlate to the combination between each species genetic rates of change and the amount of time between the divergence of those species. Oversimplified example: Species X's DNA is known to change about Q% each generation, and we think that species X diverged from species Y approximately Z years ago, we would hypothesize the DNA of species Y to be at most Z * Q% different.
4) Convergence of Evidence - If we were to hypothesize that there is common descent between two species, we should find this hypothesis is supported by the genetic evidence, fossil evidence, AND morphological evidence, and that each provides strength and independent verification to the others.
If macroevolution occurred, we would expect to find evidence supporting the aforementioned hypothesis, as well as each distinct area supporting the others. While this is only an extremely small and oversimplified part of the overwhelming evidence for macro evolution, providing independent and converging evidence that supports each hypothesis would be very strong evidence for macroevolution.
This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 15 2014 09:56pm