I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[FreedByte]

This is first the assumption that common genes came from a common ancestor but the scientist are finding many surprises where creatures share common genes that was not the result of common ancestor. One of those surprises were bats and dolphins shared over 200 genes. (The exact opposite is also true. Features that suppose to be the result of common ancestor are developed by different genes.)

That's because ultimately we all share a common ancestor.

The theory common genes has to be the result of common ancestor has been falsified by the evidence.

No. The fossil record alone is sufficient evidence.

 

[Smidlee]

That's because ultimately we all share a common ancestor.

I don't have faith in that assumption. There is the assumption that needs to be proven. There is also ORFans and singleton problem.

No. The fossil record alone is sufficient evidence.

The fossil evidence has never support Darwin's theory since the tree has always been upside down. The genetics evidence is totally destroying Darwin's tree.

 

[FreedByte]

I don't have faith in that assumption. There is the assumption that needs to be proven.

It is clearly demonstrated, usually in second year high school biology classes.

The fossil evidence has never support Darwin's theory since the tree has always been upside down. The genetics evidence is totally destroying Darwin's tree.

what?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think you do, if you did why would creationists keep going on about evidence?

Does it matter?

I don't -- and you still arc & spark about it.

why wouldn't you just sit back with a smile on your face and just believe?

I do.

Not that it makes a difference to you, though.

I think you think you're making a point; and believe me: you're not.

People like me expose you guys for what you're really doing: expressing fake concern.

why do creationists go looking for the Ark?

Because they're ... well ... they shouldn't be; let's put it that way.

Why? does it matter?

Don't you guys look for a YOOHOO from space, or a tachyon here or there?

why did they build the "creation museum"?

Because scientists are starting to ussher in the "days of Noah", and some think that a model Ark might just help the public get a proper perspective on how miracles really work over magic.

[apart from to make loads of money]

[So they can afford to have their taxes go to SETI, cow-belching-methane gas research, and space probes exiting the solar system.]

why does evolution bother creationists so much?

Would you like it if I read the Necronomicon to your children?

 

[EternalDragon]

It is clearly demonstrated, usually in second year high school biology classes.

what?

You are believing an unscientific assumption then.

True, the fossil record does not support evolution at all. In fact it is evidence against it. You have been brainwashed by the system.

 

[lasthero]

You are believing an unscientific assumption then.

True, the fossil record does not support evolution at all. In fact it is evidence against it. You have been brainwashed by the system.

Spoken like a true conspiracy nut.

 

[FreedByte]

You are believing an unscientific assumption then.

True, the fossil record does not support evolution at all.

No I said it does

You have been brainwashed by the system.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Would you like it if I read the Necronomicon to your children?

You want to read non-existent books to other people's children?

That's just wierd

 

[Delphiki]

There is a big difference. We believe God's creation by faith....you believe man came from a rock and call it science.

Ahh.. no. That would be you guys.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[FreedByte]

Ahh.. no. That would be you guys.

 

[Dizredux]

The fossil evidence has never support Darwin's theory since the tree has always been upside down.

Gosh, someone had better tell the Paleontologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware that the fossil evidence doesn't support evolution.

The genetics evidence is totally destroying Darwin's tree.

Geneticists are another group you need to break the news to as they too seem to be rather unaware that evolution has been destroyed.

You have a lot of work ahead of you, best get busy.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosh, someone had better tell the Paleontologists about this as they seem to be blissfully unaware that the fossil evidence doesn't support evolution.

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Don't they already claim that, even without the fossil record the Theory of Evolution would still stand?

 

[Dizredux]

It wouldn't matter, would it?

Don't they already claim that, even without the fossil record the Theory of Evolution would still stand?

True. However geneticists have a good bit of very strong evidence supporting evolution even without the fossil record. Combine the two and you have something extremely well supported.

If evolution were shown not to be true, it would make faith a lot simpler but unfortunately evolution happens and the theory of such is one of if not the most supported theory in science today.

We have to deal with it as it is or not. If you want to reject evolution as part of your religious belief, it is fine by me.

Dizredux

 

[Zosimus]

No, we have evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other creatures, most recently with chimpanzees, who have very similar dna to us.

This is not actually true. What you have is a finding that humans and chimpanzees DNA is 98 percent similar. You think that this is evidence for common descent, but it is not.

You see, the theory of common descent predicts that chimps and humans will have similar DNA. Once you find that the DNA is similar, you think that your theory has been proved true. In reality, however, you have merely committed a logical fallacy.

By way of comparison, if the Christian God created the universe, the universe will be an orderly place. Since it is orderly, some people might think that God has been proved. In reality, however, nothing has been proved.

Certainly everyone can agree that the DNA is too similar to have occurred by chance alone. As such the "by chance" theory is ruled out. However, since the main bone of contention is between intelligent design (and/or creationism) and Darwinism, simply ruling out chance neither supports nor harms your argument in any way.

 

[Shemjaza]

This is not actually true. What you have is a finding that humans and chimpanzees DNA is 98 percent similar. You think that this is evidence for common descent, but it is not.

You see, the theory of common descent predicts that chimps and humans will have similar DNA. Once you find that the DNA is similar, you think that your theory has been proved true. In reality, however, you have merely committed a logical fallacy.

It's not merely the fact that living creatures have similar DNA, it's the pattern of similarities. The fact that the DNA and in particular the ERV insertions line up with a nested hierarchy of life from a common ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

However geneticists have a good bit of very strong evidence supporting evolution even without the fossil record.

But only if one is willing to jump gaps, correct?

If an evolutionist tells me that, DNA-wise, we are 98% chimpanzee; what about that 2% that tells me I'm a human?

Am I supposed to interpret that as both of us coming from a common ancestor?

If God can create both bronze (copper & tin) and brass (copper & zinc) separately, can't He create both chimpanzees and humans separately?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not actually true. What you have is a finding that humans and chimpanzees DNA is 98 percent similar. You think that this is evidence for common descent, but it is not.

This is what we refer to as "ontological reduction."

That is, God created the universe with a fixed amount of hardware; q.v. the Periodic Table.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not merely the fact that living creatures have similar DNA, it's the pattern of similarities.

Which means nothing.

NASCAR and the Daytona 500 have patterns that are more similiar than different; yet they are both two different entities altogether.

The fact that the DNA and in particular the ERV insertions line up with a nested hierarchy of life from a common ancestor.

But you have to make a "jump" to that common ancestor, since evolution cannot be daisy-chained, except on paper.

 

[Dizredux]

But only if one is willing to jump gaps, correct?

If an evolutionist tells me that, DNA-wise, we are 98% chimpanzee; what about that 2% that tells me I'm a human?

Am I supposed to interpret that as both of us coming from a common ancestor?

If God can create both bronze (copper & tin) and brass (copper & zinc) separately, can't He create both chimpanzees and humans separately?

In this light, God can do anything but this idea can explain everything and therefore explains nothing.

God could make the sky purple, God could make rainbows square, God could make me 29 years old and look like Paul Newman.

That God could make anything happen is not an issue but to use this as an argument just doesn't work very well at all.

Another problem is that the argument gives us nothing to study or learn. Why is the sky blue? God made it that way, he could make it any color he wishes and he chose to make it blue. "God made it that way", end of curiosity, end of inquiry, end of trying to explore nature and to learn.

The argument that something is because God made it that way may be true but takes us nowhere.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

Another problem is that the argument gives us nothing to study or learn. Why is the sky blue? God made it that way, he could make it any color he wishes and he chose to make it blue. "God made it that way", end of curiosity, end of inquiry, end of trying to explore nature and to learn.

Either that, or the sky is blue because God put the Rayleigh effect into operation.

Did you ever think of that?

I'm not a big fan of just saying GOD DID IT to everything.

There can indeed be some intermediary steps between the Cause and the effect.