Responding to Atheists on Abiogenesis and Evolution

As I said before, you are only promoting your myths, not science. First off, on your claim of contradiction about abiogenesis (magic) and evolution. There is no contradiction. Saying abiogenesis (the false hope of atheists) and evolution are separate questions is a statement of scope, not independence. They are distinct fields that answer different questions, but they are logically linked in a naturalistic framework. Evolution presupposes that a self-replicating, information-bearing organism already exists. Abiogenesis is invoked to explain how that system arose without design. You can separate them for study, but not for explanation. Without abiogenesis, naturalistic evolution has no starting point. Without evolution, abiogenesis explains nothing beyond a hypothetical first cell. A complete naturalistic story requires both. Pointing out that one has not been demonstrated does not deny that the other may, and I do say, may operate within limits.

Second, on your claim that micro (within a kind) and macro (from one type to another) evolution differ only by scale. Your assertion is not demonstrated. Microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies, trait distributions, and population structure within existing genetic and developmental systems. Macroevolution claims that the same processes can generate new organs, body plans, regulatory architectures, and integrated biological systems over time. That jump is not merely quantitative. It is qualitative. Showing that variation occurs within a system does not demonstrate that the system itself can be originative. Selection sorts. It does not invent. Mutation modifies. It overwhelmingly degrades or neutralizes function. The claim that accumulation alone bridges this gap is an extrapolation, not an observation.

Third, on speciation and the goatsbeard example. Polyploid speciation in plants (still within a kind) is real. It is observable. It is also a genetic copying event, not a creative one. Polyploidy duplicates existing genomes. It does not generate new genes with new functions from scratch. The resulting organism is reproductively isolated (separated and alone), but it remains entirely within its original plant kind, using the same cellular machinery, same metabolic pathways, same developmental logic. Reproductive isolation alone does not equal macroevolutionary innovation. The biological species concept is a human classification tool, not a creative mechanism. It tells us how we label organisms after the fact. It does not tell us how new biological complexity arises.

Fourth, on your claim that speciation (kinds) equals macroevolution by definition. You are wrong in that as well. Definitions do not generate mechanisms. You can define macroevolution as speciation if you want, but that does not make the underlying biological claim accurate. The real question is not whether populations can split. They can. The question is whether unguided processes can generate novel biological information, new regulatory networks, and new irreducibly integrated systems. Speciation events observed in real time overwhelmingly involve loss, shuffling, duplication, or silencing of existing genes. They do not show the origin of new molecular machinery.

Fifth, your accusation (false) that observed evolution has not been addressed. It has been discussed. Observed evolution demonstrates adaptation, selection, and population divergence. It does not illustrate the evolution of molecules to man. It does not explain the origin of the genetic code. It does not demonstrate the origin of cellular translation systems. It does not illustrate the origin of developmental body plans. Treating these as the same claim is the core category error.

Sixth, on your so-called remarkable genomic coincidence. Genetic similarity is expected under common design just as it is under common descent. Reuse of functional code is standard engineering practice. Similarity alone does not tell you how the information originated. It tells you that organisms share functional constraints and architectures. The inference to unguided descent is philosophical, not experimentally compelled.

Seventh, on your demand for a mechanism that precludes micro becoming macro. The burden of proof is reversed here. Your claim being made is that micro processes can generate macro outcomes. That requires demonstration (the ball is in your court). The absence of a demonstrated creative mechanism is not conjecture. It is an observation. Until mutation and selection are shown to generate new functional information at the scale required, the extrapolation remains unproven.

Finally, on the scientific method. Observing a phenomenon does not automatically validate a theory that claims far more than what is observed. Science requires limits. When a theory is protected by redefining terms, shifting definitions, and declaring scale differences irrelevant, it stops being empirical and becomes narrative-driven. Pointing this out is not denial. It is methodological skepticism.

In short, what I am saying is this, microevolution is real. Speciation can occur. None of that demonstrates that unguided natural processes can explain the origin and escalation of biological complexity. That leap remains assumed (by you and others), not observed, not replicated, and not mechanically resolved.