Can we find an example of macroevolution ?

It depends how you define macroevolution. Speciation itself is not enough. When I studied human evolution our class was told speciation was not considered macroevolution.

A Chihuahua and a Great Dane can t produce offspring so they could be considered separate species but they are still dogs. The same goes for the London Underground mosquito, and for ring species. (Jerry Coyne says there actually are no ring species)

To explain microbes to man evolution you need many information adding mutations.

So where is an observed instance of an information adding mutation resulting in a new genera or higher? None that I know of..

No, & please ignore the lying answers from these atheist Morons like lighting the way to Delusional thinking with his lying atheist BS websites with its fabricated pseudo JUNK science, talk Origins is a BS atheist Lying web site with NO credibility using fabricated data interpreted through and by a bias presupposition that has an agenda behind it.

Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter.

The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”

The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.”

You know...I find many in the Atheist secular community constantly equating the word science with macroevolution, or large change. This has led to gross misunderstanding of those who are trying to fathom the origins issue. If macroevolution and science are used synonymously, then of course creation science would be “anti-science.”

The origins debate centers around macroevolution, and macroevolution has never been observed. One of the architects of neo-Darwinism agrees: “It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor.

Anyone with any brains can clearly see that according to secular sources, macroevolution and true science have nothing to do with each other. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding continues to be propagated by those who should know better and they perpetuate it for their own secular agenda.

I can give you a perfect example, staff writer John Tedesco of the San Antonio Express News reported (11/08/99) Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg as saying, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that.”

There is NO excuse for that, that is a HATE crime! anyone who says otherwise is a liar!

Hox Hype

Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/hox-hype/

MEDICAL DOCTORS Dissect Darwinism!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJKuKEnubf4

Sure. There are many species that are in the process of 1 species becoming 2 species.

2 examples:

Lizards on 2 islands off the coast of Italy

Salamanders that form a Ring Species that exists in southern California.

There is no known mechanism to prevent it. Do you know of one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_ra... Genes do mutate at a demonstrable rate. If 2 populations are separated either by sexual selection or physical barrier, Natural Selection kicks-in to select for different mutations depending on the environment and their genomes will become different enough that they can no longer interbreed. ====> One species becomes 2 species. There is no known mechanism to prevent it. Murphy's 1st Law: Any thing that is possible (given enough chances), will happen. Consider a Ring Species of salamanders that occur through-out southern California http://www.ensatina.net/FILES/ensatina.h... It does NOT matter if the mutation is dominate or recessive. All that is required is that the mutation gives a reproductive advantage, either sexual or physical. The advantage will mean more offspring with the mutation, even if recessive, it will choke out the dominate and collect in the population genome. When enough mutations collect====> New species.

It is only a matter of time until 1 species becomes 2 species. We are getting to see the entire speciation process (what Creationists call "macro evolution" and say that it is impossible) from start to finish. We will see what was known to have once been 1 species become irrefutably 2 species and another Creationist straw man will be completely and irrefutably destroyed.

At that point, the Creationists will "move the goalposts" and argue "Yes. But, they are both still lizards (salamanders)." They will re-define speciation (macro evolution) as evolution to a different biological Family. They know that proof of speciation is sure to happen and they are already moving in that direction.

EDIT:

CRR has offered a challenge and I accept:

@OldPilot, post as a question " What demonstrated mechanism would prevent a species from continuing to evolve to a new genera? Given enough time."

CRR · 20 hours ago

OK, CRR:

Have at it, what is your demonstrated mechanism that would prevent evolution to a new genera. Remember, the mechanism does NOT stop speciation, but does stop a new genus. Murphy's 1st Law applies:"Any thing that is possible, will happen, given enough opportunities." (This I gotta hear.)

The Pod Mrcaru lizards:

Body structure is changing and will continue to change.

Diet is changing and will continue to change

Internal organs are changing and will continue to change

AND you think that given enough time all those changes and more will not add to a new genus? Really?

There is little difference in the mechanisms of evolution between speciation, and when a line is crossed between groups that are later recognized as major separations of life. We have a number of so-called transitional fossils that make that change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_... and new intermediate animal fossils are being discovered all the time.

If you want to see the history of the term, which meant different things to different people, and was out of favor for a while until Creationists, forced to accept speciation ("microevolution") retreated but then came up with a strategy to argue against the origin of higher taxa ("macroevolution"). See the essay at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm...

You should also look at the examples at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ which is titled: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"

@Redeemed. I want to point out that Redeemed, in his desperation to bolster his beliefs, has BLOCKED anyone who provides specific references and evidence that show his comments are based on ignorance, or worse. He resorts to insults rather than any evidence that falsifies the science of evolution. His credibility and ethics here are zero.

Sure! We can find an example of macroevolution! The image in this link provides an example showing several skulls of fossil hominins in an evolutionary sequence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hom...

And, interestingly enough, some creationist pseudo-scientists have themselves proven macroevolution.

That is because some creationist pseudo-scientists say that some of those fossil hominids were fully ape, whereas other creationist pseudo-scientists say those SAME hominids were fully human.

That disagreement is because the creationist pseudo-scientists are committed to their belief that there are NO transitional species. Therefore they are forced to place the fossils as being either fully ape or fully human with no in-between. The problem is that they cannot agree on whether some of them are fully ape or fully human.

This site shows comparisons of what the creationist pseudo-scientists say.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

The chart in that site was posted before some of the fossils in the image I provided in the link at the top of my answer were incorporated into the the chart.

One of the new finds, D2700, is one of the skulls above the comparison chart but has not yet been added to the chart.

See this for more information about that fossil.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

I have created a new version of the chart adding that skull. See the revised chart below.

Interestingly, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, says that fossil is of an ape,

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/human_origins...

whereas Answers in Genesis says it is human.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/homin...

I can think of no better evidence for the transitional nature of those fossils than the fact that the creationist pseudo-scientists cannot agree on whether some of the skulls are human and whether those same skulls are ape.

So, creationist pseudo-scientists themselves prove that macroevolution exists.

Added

@CRR asks about an observed instance of an information adding mutation resulting in a new genera or higher.

An information-adding mutation is not necessarily required to form a new genera. A new genera need not be more informationally complex than the predecessor, but rather just be the result of a modification of the body plan. A new genera with a modification of body plan could be the result of developmental changes in the body plan by mutations in the expression in HOX genes along with other genetic mutations over a great many generations.

As for an information-adding mutation, here are some examples.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-o...

Added genes, such as through gene doubling, provides more genetic material that can be subjected to mutations, thus resulting in newly added information.

Added

@RBTBOTL: "talk Origins is a BS atheist Lying web site with NO credibility using fabricated data interpreted through and by a bias presupposition that has an agenda behind it."

Here is the correct version: "AIG is a BS creationist Lying web site with NO credibility using fabricated data interpreted through and by a bias presupposition that has an agenda behind it." And that also goes for other creationist web sites.

And as far as his video about medical doctors is concerned, they are no more qualified to comment on the validity of evolutionary biology than an evolutionary biologist is qualified to perform medicine.

Particularly when those medical doctors are creationists who place their religious beliefs above real science.

As for his claims against the links I provided, I challenge him to show how those sites have fabricated the data.

He can't because all he can do is to sputter his mouth off.

Cold showers: They not only burn 500 extra calories per day, studies from The New Britain Journal of Medicine cite the icy water also activates ‘brown fat’ – the favorable type of body fat which creates body heat, increases metabolism and burns off naughty bright fat.

Banish salt from a foods wherever you can. Not only does it raise your blood pressure and dry your blood, but sodium causes you to retain water contributing to overall ill health and weight gain.

Aside from the fact that "macroevolution" is a nonsense term coined by creationist apologists to avoid the fact that evidence for evolution is so overwhelming and undeniable, try these:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-mac...

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/m...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h...

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevo...

Sure. As a matter of fact, we can find one within historic times. There is an island in the Great Salt Lake that is home to a mouse that is found nowhere else. Within historic times, the island was underwater. The mouse, therefore, must have evolved on the island after the level of the lake went down far enough to expose it.

Some animals have wide natural adaptation not macroevolution.

Natural adaptation is ability for animal.

Forest is green environment, and from animal to plant, nature has wide natural adaptation.

Some bad scientists would like to explain your birth.

They would like to be your mother and father to cheat your money and belief.

It is evident that cigarette is bad plant, would you like to be smoked by bad scientists?

Evolution is not fact for ever and it has infinite holes.

The life lies in movement and evolution is zombie.

Health is perpetual motion machine and evolution is skeleton.

The brain is magic and evolution is death-head.

Drug-like evolution is happening everyday.

In dustrial and chemical environment, cancer-like evolution is happening everyday.