The Blue Board

And therein lies the problem. With modern technology (even though we think it's highly advanced) it is simply not advanced enough to bring any sort of hard fact to the table or this discussion. It's all speculation until we have the technology or come across something that supports their theories other than a fraction of a human skull believed to be from over 2.5 million years ago.

I'm going to try and be concise with this because I have a test tomorrow, but if you want to know more I'll be back on tomorrow afternoon. The only difference between macro- and microevolution is the number of mutations that have accumulated. Macroevolution is just microevolution spread out over a long period of time, possibly with some "bottleneck" events thrown in to really pare down traits that have been selected. There are different classes of mutations that you can look at to look at micro (short-term) versus macro (long term) evolution. Mutations of certain parts of DNA that are not key to survival (and thus would not be readily missed) tend to accumulate more rapidly as they are more acceptable to transmission of DNA from parent to offspring. Mutations of other parts of DNA that are key to survival (like the DNA for proteins that replicate DNA or transcribe RNA) tend to accumulate over a more lengthy time-span, because major mutations in these areas greatly reduce the chance of reproduction. There are other markers as well, like retrovirus markers. Retroviruses are viruses that insert their DNA into human DNA in order to "piggyback" on human cell replication. These include viruses like HIV and Human T-cell Lymphoma Virus (HTLV). Pretty much every species has these, and they can number in the tens of thousands. Each species has certain ones that are characteristic to them, but there are also ones in common that can only be present if they were inserted in a common ancestor that then passed this viral DNA down to its descendants. There are at least seven of these that are shared by both chimps and humans, which proves that they had a common ancestor that gave rise to both of them, hence evidence of macroevolution. There is a paper discussing retroviral DNA in the human genome attached as well as a video that explains it really well.

edit: left out the word "mutations" at the start of a couple of sentences.

In response to Jcrick

You realize human DNA is more comparable to a dolphin than a primate right?

Jcrick is bringing in it ITT.

Mutations always degenerate a species rather than progressing it. It's such a weak argument that evolutionists are leaving it behind.

Good point. And, modern dating methods, which are notoriously unreliable, are no friend to evolutionsist either. It's just a matter of time before the theory is dubunked. It took a while for folks to admit the earth was round too.

I can't find the link,but there was a case of observed macroevolution of fish in Lake Victoria.

interesting, but my question is, why would a snake "evolve" into loosing its legs? Seems backwards.
Now, I dont doubt that snakes have legs tucked into their bodys,

But heres a little nugget from the Bible for you to ponder about snakes having legs tucked in their bodies;

After Satan tempted and caused Eve to eat the fruit from tree of knowledge of good & evil, God said to Satan (who came to Eve as a Snake)
Genesis 3:14
So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

So basically, the Word of God is saying that, snakes were walking on legs until God cursed them so they would crawl. Maybe God just tucked its legs in its body?? I cant say for whales, but im sure God has done infinite things He hasnt told us about. But He did tell us about snakes crawling. God is Amazing!! Nobody can measure His wisdom and understanding.

New Living Translation (©2007)

Snake: Because it no longer needed them. Keep in mind snakes and lizards have a common ancestor which they branch off from lizards keep the legs, the snakes adopted a different adaptation strategy and over time lost them to the point where current snakes show vestigal remnants of thigh bones but remain small inside the body. Natural selection works as incremental mutations to DNA, and hence body form over generations. Having "legs" is not a superior adaptation than not having them its just what functions successfully in a particular ecological niche. Also evolution doesn't follow a linear model. Snakes are one of the most evolutionary successful species on the planet so did God really "cursed" with no legs?

The ancestor of whales used to live on land, then transition to a part land, part water based existence, and then an ecological niche presented itself were survival and prosperity was possible by adopting a aquatic existence. Once it had a purely aqautic existence it no longer needed the legs to support it so they began to shrink to the vestigal point they are today. Keep in mind when we say evolutionary time we mean thousands of years or longer. And because the water dispersed/supported its weight, whales were able to grow much larger to the point where they are some the largest animals to ever live on earth. Living on land limits growth hence the reason why elephants are the largest land mammal which are nothing compare to the largest whales.

wow

so, these little swingers share 99% of your DNA?

so, does that mean you are 99% bisexual, or by my math, 49.5% gay?

This demonstrates that you have a poor understanding of what the theory of evolution actually is. Please read some of the links provided itt, or even just the Wikipedia page would be fine.

relax, killer...

there's no gays in the military... at all... in other news... the innernets are not surrus bidness