To provide a more technical support to my arguments against macroevolution, I have provided the following links, which present fundamental challenges to the possibility of macroevolution: (all links also include an abundance of references for further research if you are interested)
This article explains 9 fundamental requirements for macroevolution to even occur, with strong technical explanations and evidence from geneticist R.H. Byles:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-166.htm
This article explains the importance of proving macroevolution to the evolutionary theory. It also discusses the lack of such proof, and also deals with the empty attack against creationists that they have no scientific backing:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-095a.htm
This article is similar, explaining the lack of evidence, the paranoia against the creationist model, and much of the other topics we have been recently discussing:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-109a.htm EDITED to add another link. This article explains the confession of leading evolutionary scientists of the inability for natural selection to bring about any sort of marcoevolutionary change in species:
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/afsept02.html EDITED to add another significant link. This article involves the whole transition fossil issue. Of significant importance is the discussion about Stephen J. Gould (one of the most prominent and recognized spokesmen for evolution today) and the article in which he confesses to the inability of the fossil record to support evolutionary theories. Though I hope you read the article in full (as there is much more information than this contained in it) here is the quote to which I am referring:
Quote:
The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, "2 Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated.
2. S.J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22
|
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-123.htm
I truly hope you will spend time fully reading these articles (yes, after posting this I am returning to the macro-evolution link you sent me earlier, so I am being fair =] ) as I think you might be quite surprised to see more technical evidence than I have been able to explain.
As always, if you would like more resources, I'm more than happy to post them for you.