Macroevolution, The Overselling of a Speculation

Dear Stu,

In your comment (# 5) you declare that for you, macroevolution is a non falsifiable inference instead of being a mere speculation, as I held it to be.

First, it must be said that for staunch evolutionists the word "macroevolution" doesn't exist! They don't want even to allow us to dissect their fiction from reality!

However, the evidence indicates that every living organisms considered by evolution as diverging into two separate and non-compatible groups of organisms (their speculated "speciation") are indeed compatible varieties of organisms able to interbreed (a compatible variation)!

The evolutionary overselling and distortion of reality that I have been denouncing here is precisely that specific aspect of a biased evolutionary theory (fact that can be verified by my posting on Laupala compatibility where initially S.C. clearly exposed how the (and his) atheistic philosophy is currently biasing biology).

You can easily see that biased evolutionists still use Archaeopteryx as their icon of an extinct and non-granted or false "speciation", as the mythical intermediate between reptilian dinosaurs and birds... read those lies by yourself:

"Dr. Novacek [Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan] responded: "We've got Archaeopteryx, an early whale that lived on land, and now this animal showing the transition from fish to tetrapod. What more do we need from the fossil record to show that the creationists are flatly wrong?" ... "Dr. Shubin [Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago plus Edward B. Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr., a Harvard evolutionary biologist], an evolutionary biologist, let himself go... Tiktaalik is so clearly an intermediate "link between fishes and land vertebrates" ...it "might in time become as much an evolutionary icon as the proto-bird Archaeopteryx," which bridged the gap between reptiles (probably dinosaurs) and today's birds."

And who is behind such "calculated" lies?

"The science foundation [the National Science Foundation] and the National Geographic Society were among the financial supporters of the research."

However, Archaeopteryx today is fully considered as a bird. Let me recap with you the next references:

Alonso PD, Milner AC, Ketcham RA, Cookson MJ, Rowe TB. The avian nature of the brain and inner ear of Archaeopteryx. Nature. 2004 Aug 5;430(7000):666-9. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known flying bird

Burish MJ, Kueh HY, Wang SS. Brain architecture and social complexity in modern and ancient birds. Brain Behav Evol. 2004;63(2):107-24.
Archaeopteryx, an ancient bird

Zhang F, Zhou Z. Palaeontology: leg feathers in an Early Cretaceous bird. Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):925.
the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx

Chatterjee S, Templin RJ. The flight of Archaeopteryx.
Naturwissenschaften. 2003 Jan;90(1):27-32.
bird, Archaeopteryx

Below of my original posting for those references, you can see the answer of Neil A. Wells, an atheist and evolutionist, like all of those "S" guys that have been posting here (Smile):

"Sorry, I wasn't very clear about the status of Archaeopteryx... Archaeopteryx has precisely "average" wing geometry (aspect & loading) relative to modern bird wing types."

Do you want to remember a previous hoax perpetrated by National Geographic? Check on the Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

Want to check something about The Overselling of Whale Evolution?

[?] Want to see something scholarly oriented related to the classic Piltdown Fraud: Available Evidence Reviewed. Weiner and Oakley. American Journal of Physical Anthropology March 1954.

The same can be said of any other myth for an extinct "speciation", you can check it by yourself about the very alive one: The Coelacanth. And the many varieties of it that still are being discovered today and today and tomorrow! (smile).

The same can be said of: The Australian Lungfish and its varieties.

The same can be said of: The African Lungfish and its varieties.

How long it will take to demonstrate that Tiktaalik is another example of a false evolutionary overselling of a non-existing event of an extinct "speciation", exactly like the Coelacanth and the Lungfish were before?

PS:

Coelacanth fossils have even been found in Kansas by Pam Everhart in 1990, the subject of a presentation (Stewart, J.D., et al., 1991) at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and the Kansas Academy of Science annual meeting in 1995.

Lung Fish fossils have been found in Quebec, Canada as reported to the Canadian Journal of Earth Science 24: 2351–2361.

Update: Next, an important related statement by Andrew Rowell, from his posting "Macro-evolution as religious doctrine":

"A much wider audience has learned that some supposedly objective scientists who are only concerned with “facts” actually have a deeply emotional and what could accurately be described as a “religious commitment” to macro evolution as the central dogma of naturalism. This emotional and “religious” commitment extends well beyond the realm of facts and functions in a way analogous to any organised religion."

And for those atheists reading this posting, go to: Atheism/secularism a religion and A. Rowell's most recent one: Secularism one religious viewpoint?