"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.
And what it actually is, is a case of someone taking Wikipedia articles as literal, absolute truth. Wikipedia is, at best, a starting point. It does not contain all or even most of the information on a subject, and sometimes it can be unintentionally misleading. If you want more concrete and reliable info, you need to read what the scientists themselves write, not the snippets contained in Wiki articles. And that doesn't mean quote mining - taking individual sentences out of context without even providing the source you got it from, because anytime you have only a single quoted sentence without a reference to the rest of the article or book, it's pretty clear that someone
picked that sentence out deliberately to convey a particular idea, whether or not it has anything to do with what the person actually said or even if it's actually true in the first place.
All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.
They're not thrown out and mocked because they "don't toe the party line". If they're thrown out and mocked, it's because they aren't actually doing real science. Because they're ignoring or discarding evidence which they don't agree with, because they aren't following the scientific method, because they're simply making stuff up, or whatever.
Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.
That you claim there are no gaps and that God created each species is not just speculation, it is ignorant speculation, wishful thinking masquerading as rational thought. Do you not realize that every single branch of science has gaps that have not been filled? Science is about filling the gaps with knowledge based on evidence, not in pretending that the gaps don't exist because of the oh-so-convenient "explanation" that "God did it". Everything discovered through any branch of science has come about because of people who are not satisfied with "God did it" as an explanation.
I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis. How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?
Okay, you quoted Emile Zuckerkandl. What's your source? You didn't have any problem providing Wikipedia links at the beginning of this post, so why did you not do the same here? This stinks of quote mining. When I Googled this, I found several links to creationist web sites which, unsurprisingly, used the exact same quote in the exact same way, to attempt to cast doubt on evolution that appeared to come straight from a major biologist. I also found the original source of this quote, an article printed in a biology journal, The appearance of new structures and functions in proteins during evolution
. Unfortunately, the part where the quote actually comes from requires a subscription to that particular journal, but given the nature of quote mining and the overall context of the paper, it's clearly evident that Zuckerkandl was not actually saying what creationists would like him to have said. In fact, that has all the earmarks of a preface statement, to be followed by an explanation of how he actually did analyze it.
I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)
Again, a quote from a noted evolutionary biologist, with no citation of the actual source. But the devastating irony here is that your ignorance of this subject caused you to pick a quote which badly damaged your own assertions. Note the part after "not by Darwinian selection": "but by the random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations"
. You stopped reading a bit too quickly, I think.
This quote is from "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution."
First off, you should note that your quote is slightly wrong, as the quote actually begins with "The neutral
theory..." Second, the paragraph continues, "The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species."
What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?
This is nonsense. However, thanks to your efforts here, I can now demonstrate that you are either ignorant of the actual facts regarding evolution, or you are lying about them to give your own beliefs credence. Right now I'm leaning towards ignorance, given that last quote you picked.