Skeptic Blog

whydidhechooseme:

Macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis based on studies of geology, genetics, and paleontology.

Not true. It’s a theory, which is a well-supported explanation for the evidence that we have. You are correct in that it’s based on the evidence of the areas that you named, as well as some others.

Lucy is an ape who walked on her knuckles. It was noted that her hip structure could have been fitted together to resemble a human hip structure.

Incorrect. “Lucy” is of a pre-hominid species called Australopithecus afarensis, which existed around 3 million years ago. There are several fundamental differences between Lucy and common chimps, including her longer legs and shorter arms (a transition between chimps, who have very long arms and short legs, and humans, who have very short arms and long legs), pelvic structure, and parts of the jaw structure (the mandible seems to be a particular find in this area).

Lucy walked upright. As the Institute for Human Origins says, “Lucy’s bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large and are thus adapted to handling the added weight that results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance.”

The Archaeopteryx is a bird. It simply has claws and teeth.

Archaeopteryx, though both more avian and displaying a greater degree of autapomorphy than previously thought (Elzanowski & Wellnhofer 1996, Elzanowski 2002) is nonetheless an unquestionably primitive bird. The archaeopterygid skeleton is unequivocal in demonstrating the transitional status of this animal and indeed, characters classically hailed as “avian,” including the quintessence of birdness - feathers and furculae - are now known from throughout Theropoda. Characters of Archaeopteryx which are plesiomorphic comparative to all other Aves and most notably Ornithurae, include:

• Lack of any of the cranial components permitting streptostylic kinesis.

• Rhamphotheca absent.

• Occipital condyle and foramen magnum oriented caudally, not ventrally.

• Centra not heterocoelus.

• Pygostyle absent.

• Bicipital crests not hypertrophied.

• Pneumatic fossa of the proximal humerus absent

• Proximal groove for the insertion of the supracoracoideus on the humerus absent.

• Acrocoracoid incipient.

• Uncinate processes absent.

• Sternal ribs absent.

• Ulna lacks remigial pappilae.

• Distal tendinal pit on the ulna absent.

• Carpometacarpus absent.

• Metacarpal IV not strongly bowed.

• Manual digit IV not confluent with digit III.

• Posterolateral flange of the proximal phalanx of digit III absent.

• Ischium and ilium unfused.

• Femur lacks confluence of lesser and greater trochanters.

• Proximal pneumatic fossa of the femur absent.

• The tibia lacks a cranial cnemial crest.

• Tibiotarsus absent.

• Ectopterygoid present.

• Triosseal canal absent.

The absence of these characters in Archaeopteryx renders any argument to the effect that it is not a transitional form, bridging the gap between reptile and bird, dubious at best. Creationists must explain why the osteology of Archaeopteryx often exhibits the plesiomorphic archosaurian condition as opposed to the derived avian condition, precisely as predicted by evolutionary biology.

The platypus is a mammal. It simply lays eggs.

Correct. And no scientist has ever said otherwise. 

Macroevolution means a horse can give birth to a giraffe by adding information to its genetic code out of nothing.

No, it doesn’t. It’s clear that you’re rather misinformed about evolution. I recommend you to read my page as a primer, and follow from the links listed. One problem with your claim is that evolution is (usually) a slow, gradual process. The change in genetics from one animal to its offspring would be minuscule in amount. You wouldn’t be able to notice much change. 

Changes take place over time, and a division between species (differentiation) can take hundreds of thousands of years, as one group of a specie evolves away from the other, until their DNA are no longer compatible for reproduction. As you look at the growing disparity among dog breeds, if this were to be allowed to progress in nature, eventually there would be a separation among those breeds into separate species. 

Plus, horses and giraffes are the result of common ancestors. The idea that one would be able to evolve into the other is silly. 

I may respond to the rest, later. In the words of Tim Machin, whydidhechooseme, “Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision. Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition”