In the most simplest terms, show me any KIND of life(plant or animal), that does not belong to an even larger KIND of life, both morphologically and genetically?
In the simplest terms, as science already knows with certainty..."all life comes from pre-existing life". This well known and well documented fact cuts evolution down at its very beginnings. Unless science can produce evidence to correct Genesis 1:1, then it is all built on the flimsiest of foundations.
For example, a whale and a pine tree are genetically and morphologically related.
OK...let's talk about morphology....it seems to be a magical word that allows science to relate creatures based on similarity of structure and other characteristics. The thing is, as shown in the second video, they will search to find a specimen that "looks like" one already in existence (although fossilized) millions of years apart and bingo! there is your ancestor. This is assumption at its best.
In simple terms, what does science know about macro-evolution?
"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."
What is macroevolution?
Now how much of what is written there in basic form is assumption, rather than actual fact? How much does interpretation of their evidence facilitate their conclusions?
Whale evolution is my favorite because it demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what is suggested. Whales were once four legged furry land dwellers......who said?
What does this indicate......
"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."
So how does science "figure out" what evolutionary events have taken place? How then do they try to "figure out" how it happened? They must fit all their findings into one box. (no matter how silly it sounds)
If scientists (no matter the branch) are all looking for the same conclusions because, to their way of thinking evolution has been indoctrinated as a foregone conclusion, then what do you suppose the "evidence" is going to suggest to them?
All I see is people who want evolution to be true, pointing to assumptions as facts, and making other people feel stupid if they don't fawn all over science for their wondrous suggestions.
I have learned, after many years of debating with evolutionists, that the impressive edifice they have constructed has no real foundations. You guys come unstuck at the very beginning......where did life originate and how did do so? The complexity of even a single cell is mind boggling and yet science presents it as if it could just pop up out of nowhere, by "natural" means. That is where your own 'fairy tale' begins. It is swept under the rug as if it was inconsequential...it isn't. Answer that question and you have an answer for everything that science is scratching its head about.
If they are different and separate kinds, then they both must have their own ancestral kind, which can't be related to each other in any way.This of course this is not the case. In fact, at some evolutionary/ancestral level, all life is genetically, morphologically, and physically related to each other. Therefore there is only one KIND of life, and it is called LIFE. But there are many different types of life. These can be categorized, based on the simplest to the most complex features, and from the many similar features to the least similar features. What this means is that one KIND can never become another KIND. You can never outgrow your ancestors, no matter how many times you differentiate.
Yes....LIFE itself is a miracle (for want of a better term) The fact that any intelligent scientist can imagine that it arose by chance is a mystery to me.
You make assumptions about creation that are not true. If there is a sole Creator of life in all its diversity, then the structure of biological life and the materials used would of necessity be the same. He is the Creator of matter, something science has only come to terms with relatively recently (taking the age of the earth and the universe into account.)
I see science as something the Creator gave us to 'play' with....to challenge our natural curiosity and need for answers about everything. But due to the nature of fallen humanity, they ended up using it to eliminate the very one to whom they owe their existence. Like toddlers refusing the hand of a parent and falling down repeatedly. I guess they figure that they will learn to walk by themselves eventually. They haven't made it yet...by a long shot.
Even if science couldn't produce any evidence that demonstrates that Evolution is clearly the best explanation of how life evolved, your evidence must stand on its own merits. It wouldn't be simply correct by default. That would still be an argument from ignorance. So what is the creationist's research undertaken? What is the science behind the knowledge claims? Surely, you can present the same level of evidence against Evolution, as scientist can present for Evolution?
Evolution is the best suggestion if one is determined to eliminate an Intelligent Designer who started the process through stages of carefully planned creative activity over millions of Earth years. Unconstrained by time, the "days" in Genesis may well have been millions of years in length leaving him to experiment with lifeforms of infinite variety. Some were 'keepers' and some were obviously not. Ask any artist if they are satisfied with every work they have created. Each of the creative "days" in Genesis was concluded with a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had accomplished in that allotted period. That tells us believers that when the time allotted concluded, that his refinements within that period were completed to his satisfaction.
The "default" position of science is colored by their own prejudices....it must at all costs (credibility included) EXCLUDE the need for a Creator.....a "bogey man" to science. I blame the YEC for a lot of this. Their scenario is just as ridiculous.
The "best explanation" for science is accepted only within their own definition.
Those who believe in a powerful Creator do not need to dissect him and question his work, his authority, or his accomplishments. They have an actual relationship with this Being that atheists will never comprehend because you need the faculty of spirituality to even entertain it. That faculty is ridiculed by science because it isn't something that can show up on a lab test......although medical science is actually making headway on that score with the ability to map the brain to see where humans differ on their approach to things. It may well have implications that we need to understand. I believe that a scary future awaits the human race if its "science" is not reigned in.
Brain scanners allow scientists to 'read minds' – could they now enable a 'Big Brother' future?
Science is a wonderful thing IMO...a gift from the Creator to allow us to delve into his creation and discover what is deliberately not obvious. He planned it that way...but when things went wrong and humans wanted to map their own course...he allowed them to see where it would take them.....do you like the direction that science is taking us, when they have eliminated the one entity who can warn them of the outcome? I see them continuing on in their merry way....gods unto themselves.
Bread and butter. So bread is butter. 
