The evidence for Evolution.

[Loudmouth]

What common ancestor was that? The one we have no evidence of and are to just use our imagination?

We have the ERV evidence, as just one example.

Presupposing that AGT and C already exist of course even if you are supposed to be starting with simple life where all of those combinations are not possible because all the letters do not exist.

But however I don't have that problem since all combinations were possible to begin with.

That is just word salad.

Can you explain why a deity would be required to use the same codon table for all life? All you need to do in order to change the codon table is change the anti-codon on the transfer RNAs.

If you wanted to change the codon for Methionine all you need to do is change the anti-codon from UAC to some other 3 base sequence. You don't have to invent new kinds of matter to do it. You can use all the same protons, neutrons, and electrons.

A common designer does not explain why all life shares the same codons since a common designer would not need to use the same codons for all life.

Of course they are, just as a designer designs all cars similar.

Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.

Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not require the pre-existence of the other.

Elements don't form a nested hierarchy.

The evidence for common ancestry and evolution is the nested hierarchy of both shared similarities and differences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have the ERV evidence, as just one example.



That is just word salad.

Can you explain why a deity would be required to use the same codon table for all life? All you need to do in order to change the codon table is change the anti-codon on the transfer RNAs.

If you wanted to change the codon for Methionine all you need to do is change the anti-codon from UAC to some other 3 base sequence. You don't have to invent new kinds of matter to do it. You can use all the same protons, neutrons, and electrons.

A common designer does not explain why all life shares the same codons since a common designer would not need to use the same codons for all life.



Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.



Elements don't form a nested hierarchy.

The evidence for common ancestry and evolution is the nested hierarchy of both shared similarities and differences.

Your illustration has an upside down crucifix, and we all know what that means

 

[Loudmouth]

Your illustration has an upside down crucifix, and we all know what that means

"Anti-codon" is kind of close to "Anti-Christ".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have the ERV evidence, as just one example.

So you have not one fossil of any common ancestor on any tree? That's what I thought.

Of course, virus insert genomes which the host then uses to produce proteins. That you confuse the insertion point of these viruses with common inheritance is understandable, but still wrong.

Can you explain why a deity would be required to use the same codon table for all life? All you need to do in order to change the codon table is change the anti-codon on the transfer RNAs.

If you wanted to change the codon for Methionine all you need to do is change the anti-codon from UAC to some other 3 base sequence. You don't have to invent new kinds of matter to do it. You can use all the same protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Except everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. Can you explain why a deity would be required to use different codon tables for all life?

So if you were making life you would make everything different even though it must all survive in the same environment?

A common designer does not explain why all life shares the same codons since a common designer would not need to use the same codons for all life.

Commonality, the point you are overlooking. When you design different cars do you use square wheels on one, triangle wheels on the other and round wheels on the third. Why would a designer use something different for every creature when what works, works?

That they share commonality points to a common designer more than your belief in random processes. Random processes should produce random results in every case, not commonality. You got less of a reason to accept commonality than I do.

The evidence for common ancestry and evolution is the nested hierarchy of both shared similarities and differences.

Except if it was all random then there should be no commonality.

That nested hierarchy is your incorrect listing of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as separate species. You are aware are you not that infraspecific taxa abound within every species?

Then you won't mind showing me the different infraspecific taxa within each species in the fossil record that we know must exist by observation of the real world around us?

 

[Kylie]

So you have not one fossil of any common ancestor on any tree? That's what I thought.

We have lots of fossils, but no way to verify if any of them are directly on the lineage that lead to Humans.

Just like if you dig up an unmarked grave in the town where your great great great grandparents lived, you have no way of knowing if that was them, a cousin or just a neighbour.

Of course, virus insert genomes which the host then uses to produce proteins. That you confuse the insertion point of these viruses with common inheritance is understandable, but still wrong.

Only if the viruses do it exactly the same way each time. Millions and millions of times.

Except everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. Can you explain why a deity would be required to use different codon tables for all life?

So if you were making life you would make everything different even though it must all survive in the same environment?

Chimps have blood types the same way Humans do. The gene for A type blood in chimps is more similar to the gene for A type blood in Humans than it is to the gene for B type blood in chimps. In other words, the closest relation for the A type Gene in chimps is a gene in a completely different species. This is best explained by common descent. Chimps and humans have a common ancestor which had these blood types.

And before you start saying that God was just using the same genes because he wanted both chimps and humans to have blood types, well, he apparently created other animals that have blood types and was perfectly happy to use different genes for them. So he had no problem doing it then!

Commonality, the point you are overlooking. When you design different cars do you use square wheels on one, triangle wheels on the other and round wheels on the third. Why would a designer use something different for every creature when what works, works?

Yeah, why would they use leaf spring suspension on some cars, but a different kind of suspension on others? Why would they use power steering on some cars but not on others? Or cruise control. Lots of things I could mention here that are different. You can not look at a new car and see that it has systems from old cars that have just been changed a bit. Each time they develop new technologies, sometimes from scratch. Evolution does NOT do this. It only makes use of what has been there before, making changes to it. But it does not make things out of nothing.

That they share commonality points to a common designer more than your belief in random processes. Random processes should produce random results in every case, not commonality. You got less of a reason to accept commonality than I do.

Except that the similarities we see are exactly the type that indicate common ancestory.

Oh, and no doubt it has been mentioned countless times that evolution is NOT random!

Except if it was all random then there should be no commonality.

Once again, not random!

That nested hierarchy is your incorrect listing of infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as separate species. You are aware are you not that infraspecific taxa abound within every species?

Then you won't mind showing me the different infraspecific taxa within each species in the fossil record that we know must exist by observation of the real world around us?

Given that we do not have genetic information available for each fossil we find, I feel that you are just being needlessly demanding.

It's no different than if I claim that you are not descended from Adam and Eve because you are incapable of giving me a list of every person in your family tree going back that far. (This is, of course, based on your position that Adam and Eve existed, which I naturally do not share).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have lots of fossils, but no way to verify if any of them are directly on the lineage that lead to Humans.

Then why do we keep hearing of this common ancestor that doesnt exist in any fossil record on any tree for any species?

Just like if you dig up an unmarked grave in the town where your great great great grandparents lived, you have no way of knowing if that was them, a cousin or just a neighbour.

Except you have neither the cousin, the neighbor or the great great grand parents.

Apparently you have enough to claim the offshoots of this common ancestor, so certainly you can tell what was the common ancestor. If you have the neighbor and the cousin, then isnt the great grandparent all that is left?

But thats the problem, you have designated the neighbor and the cousin as separater species.

Only if the viruses do it exactly the same way each time. Millions and millions of times.

And if you look them up you will find they have developed specific attack patterns to invade specific cells at specific points. So they would do it the exact same way millions and millions of times. If you had a lockpick designed for a specific lock, would you then try to unlock locks it was not designed to unlock?

Chimps have blood types the same way Humans do. The gene for A type blood in chimps is more similar to the gene for A type blood in Humans than it is to the gene for B type blood in chimps. In other words, the closest relation for the A type Gene in chimps is a gene in a completely different species. This is best explained by common descent. Chimps and humans have a common ancestor which had these blood types.

So chimps are more closely related to humans than to themselves? If you say so. But of course A is more closely related to A than to B, what did you expect?

And before you start saying that God was just using the same genes because he wanted both chimps and humans to have blood types, well, he apparently created other animals that have blood types and was perfectly happy to use different genes for them. So he had no problem doing it then!

Why wouldnt He? They do not eat the same foods, do not have the same antibodies against diseases, etc.

Yeah, why would they use leaf spring suspension on some cars, but a different kind of suspension on others? Why would they use power steering on some cars but not on others? Or cruise control. Lots of things I could mention here that are different. You can not look at a new car and see that it has systems from old cars that have just been changed a bit. Each time they develop new technologies, sometimes from scratch. Evolution does NOT do this. It only makes use of what has been there before, making changes to it. But it does not make things out of nothing.

Ill highlight the important part you actually admitted to. So if it only makes changes to what already exists, then the belief of simple to complex is a fantasy. You seem to understand this but then will try to double talk your way out of what you just admitted to.

Except that the similarities we see are exactly the type that indicate common ancestory.

Except gold and chlorine shar the same similarities, yet gold does not require chlorine to exist and vice versa. That all are made of the same protons, neutron and electrons as is everything, one would expect similarities. You just confuse this as common decent.

Oh, and no doubt it has been mentioned countless times that evolution is NOT random!

So now evolution is a planned thing? A thinking, acting intelligence????? A design?

Once again, not random!

So evolution now decides which gene to mutate? Now you have elevated it to a thinking process? Might as well just turn it into a god while you are at it or is that the next step in the evolutionary plan?

Given that we do not have genetic information available for each fossil we find, I feel that you are just being needlessly demanding.

You are making the claim they are separate species not me. it is up to the claimant to prove his case. I claim most are just infraspecific taxa within the species as we see all around us everyday. The preponderance of the evidence is on my side, not yours.

It's no different than if I claim that you are not descended from Adam and Eve because you are incapable of giving me a list of every person in your family tree going back that far. (This is, of course, based on your position that Adam and Eve existed, which I naturally do not share).

But I am not claiming that we came from an entirely different species. You are. I claim we have always been human and will always be human. I claim that it takes two to create new infraspecific taxa. Im not claiming single cell organisms with completely different genetic types than ours magically became ours, even when you finally admitted above that only what already exists is changed - nullifying your own claims of new DNA arising where it didnt exist before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why do we keep hearing of this common ancestor that doesnt exist in any fossil record on any tree for any species?

Because the evidence clearly points to one. And we may have found some, but it is impossible to tell whether a specific fossil bore young etc.. There are countless species. Some certainly were ancestral, we can't say which ones for sure. Yet we can state which ones are almost certainly ancestral.

Except you have neither the cousin, the neighbor or the great great grand parents.

Apparently you have enough to claim the offshoots of this common ancestor, so certainly you can tell what was the common ancestor. If you have the neighbor and the cousin, then isnt the great grandparent all that is left?

But thats the problem, you have designated the neighbor and the cousin as separater species.

If you don't understand an analogy just tell us. Your failed species argument is not going to get you anywhere.

And if you look them up you will find they have developed specific attack patterns to invade specific cells at specific points. So they would do it the exact same way millions and millions of times. If you had a lockpick designed for a specific lock, would you then try to unlock locks it was not designed to unlock?

DNA is not a cell. Your argument fails again.

So chimps are more closely related to humans than to themselves? If you say so. But of course A is more closely related to A than to B, what did you expect?

Again, if you don't understand an argument you should be asking questions politely. This was not polite, and the point clearly sailed over your head.

Why wouldnt He? They do not eat the same foods, do not have the same antibodies against diseases, etc.

Because doing so results in bad engineering. Like the laryngeal nerve in giraffes. It is bad enough in humans, but in giraffes it is ridiculous. Yes, nature has found a way to profit somewhat by this extreme detour, but that does not excuse it. You are in effect stating that your God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient or else just plain lazy. Not a wise move on your part.

Ill highlight the important part you actually admitted to. So if it only makes changes to what already exists, then the belief of simple to complex is a fantasy. You seem to understand this but then will try to double talk your way out of what you just admitted to.

Once again, when you do not understand an argument don't make poor conclusions. Ask questions politely and properly.

Except gold and chlorine shar the same similarities, yet gold does not require chlorine to exist and vice versa. That all are made of the same protons, neutron and electrons as is everything, one would expect similarities. You just confuse this as common decent.

Poor analogy. Gold and chlorine atoms to not self replicate. Try to learn how to use analogies properly if you want to use them.

So now evolution is a planned thing? A thinking, acting intelligence????? A design?

No one claimed that. You are proposing a false dichotomy.

So evolution now decides which gene to mutate? Now you have elevated it to a thinking process? Might as well just turn it into a god while you are at it or is that the next step in the evolutionary plan?

Again, you are trying to use a false dichotomy. No one is making that claim. When you don't understand ask questions politely and properly.

You are making the claim they are separate species not me. it is up to the claimant to prove his case. I claim most are just infraspecific taxa within the species as we see all around us everyday. The preponderance of the evidence is on my side, not yours.

But that is wrong and you know it. Your claims on triceratops have been refuted. And even without the fossil record it is easy to show that life is the product of evolution. You have no explanation for the fossil record at all. All you have are old refuted claims. You don't even know what evidence is. Here is something that is not a false dichotomy: The claim that the preponderance of evidence is on your side is either a lie or proof positive that you do not know what evidence is. In your case it is probably the latter. Perhaps you would like to discuss the nature of evidence so that you do not make the same error again.

But I am not claiming that we came from an entirely different species. You are. I claim we have always been human and will always be human. I claim that it takes two to create new infraspecific taxa. Im not claiming single cell organisms with completely different genetic types than ours magically became ours, even when you finally admitted above that only what already exists is changed - nullifying your own claims of new DNA arising where it didnt exist before.

And that is wrong. New species evolve. And the idea of "species" as you use it is false. Species are not fixed. A population may remain the same species, but due to evolutionary changes if a distant ancestor was brought forward today it might not be able to breed with that species anymore. That is why more and more biologists use cladistics rather than species:

You are human and all of your descendants will be human. But you share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape, and both the chimpanzee and you are apes. And to state the obvious all of your descendants will be apes too. You are also a simian, a mammal, a tetrapod, a vertebrate, a chordate, and a eukaryote. And all of your descendants will be too.

And as to new DNA arising that is well understood too. The most important mutation may be that of gene replication. In that whole genes are copied. One of those long strings is free to mutate without threatening the organism. That is how one gets around mutations to vital genes being possibly fatal.[/quote]

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because the evidence clearly points to one. And we may have found some, but it is impossible to tell whether a specific fossil bore young etc.. There are countless species. Some certainly were ancestral, we can't say which ones for sure. Yet we can state which ones are almost certainly ancestral.

You can state anything you like, but until you fix your incorrect classifications in which you have all the different infraspecific taxa incorrectly listed as separate species, it's all meaningless gibberish.

If you don't understand an analogy just tell us. Your failed species argument is not going to get you anywhere.

It's going to get me further than you ignoring that all species have many infraspecific taxa within them, and you have not a single one in the fossil record. You can incorrectly classify the infraspecific taxa as separate species all you like, but your fossil record will simply remained divorced from reality until you correct it. Only those that willingly blind themselves to the world around us will ever accept it.

DNA is not a cell. Your argument fails again.

There is no cell without DNA, so who's argument is really moot? Obfuscate all you like, you understand the truth in that you already admitted to it, but like I said will now try to double talk your way out of it.

Again, if you don't understand an argument you should be asking questions politely. This was not polite, and the point clearly sailed over your head.

There was nothing impolite about stating the obvious, that A should be more closely related to A than it is to B. Your just mad cause your analogy failed miserably.

What's impolite is trying to make it sound like only you understand, when I doubt you really understand half of what I do.

Because doing so results in bad engineering. Like the laryngeal nerve in giraffes. It is bad enough in humans, but in giraffes it is ridiculous. Yes, nature has found a way to profit somewhat by this extreme detour, but that does not excuse it. You are in effect stating that your God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient or else just plain lazy. Not a wise move on your part.

Yet God created giraffes so they work just fine, despite your claiming it shouldn't. Then of course you want to claim nature found a way, when it was already created that way from the start. Your claims of poor design are just that, empty claims, since what you claim as a poor design functions perfectly. And how much more so for the long necked dinosaurs that by your accounts shouldn't have worked at all. What you consider poor design, I consider excellent engineering since it worked perfectly for dinosaurs with necks up to three times as long. So in. Reality a giraffe is but a simpler version of wha t was already perfected in a more complex form.

Once again, when you do not understand an argument don't make poor conclusions. Ask questions politely and properly.

I understood just fine. You finally admitted new DNA can not be created, now your just trying to get out of it.

Poor analogy. Gold and chlorine atoms to not self replicate. Try to learn how to use analogies properly if you want to use them.

Perfect analogy, you just don't like the truth. Both gold, chlorine, and DNA are made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. One would expect similarities in both molecules and DNA. Which is what we observe as expected.

No one claimed that. You are proposing a false dichotomy.

You claimed it by claiming mutation was not random. If it's not random it's by design. Make up your mind what you believe, if that's even possible. You change your story every other post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can state anything you like, but until you fix your incorrect classifications in which you have all the different infraspecific taxa incorrectly listed as separate species, it's all meaningless gibberish.

Wrong again. You are the one with the failed arguments. You can keep repeating them and we will keep refuting them

It's going to get me further than you ignoring that all species have many infraspecific taxa within them, and you have not a single one in the fossil record. You can incorrectly classify the infraspecific taxa as separate species all you like, but your fossil record will simply remained divorced from reality until you correct it. Only those that willingly blind themselves to the world around us will ever accept it.

Now please, you now that is not true. Once again this is a failed argument of yours. Glomming onto a technical phrase does not give you one iota of credibility try again. And when you read articles try to remember that some does not mean all. That seems to be a terrible flaw of yours. If you want to claim all then the burden of proof is upon you.

There is no cell without DNA, so who's argument is really moot? Obfuscate all you like, you understand the truth in that you already admitted to it, but like I said will now try to double talk your way out of it.

Now you are making even less sense than normal. When you don't understand how your argument failed you need to ask politely and properly. I did not obfuscate (perhaps you don't know the meaning of that word either) I identified a rather glaring error of yours.

There was nothing impolite about stating the obvious, that A should be more closely related to A than it is to B. Your just mad cause your analogy failed miserably.

Now you are being less than honest again. If you do not understand a point, and it is clear that you don't, you should ask questions politely and properly if you want an answer. Rude replies will only get you rudeness in return. And don't forget, you are the creationist, that means that if anyone has a bad analogy it is you. Creationists have a huge problem with literalism both inside out and outside of the Bible.

What's impolite is trying to make it sound like only you understand, when I doubt you really understand half of what I do.

You have it wrong again. Creationists simply do not understand science. That is why they can't get their ideas even past the relatively low hurdle of peer review. I never implied that only I understand this topic. But it is more than clear that you do not.

Yet God created giraffes so they work just fine, despite your claiming it shouldn't. Then of course you want to claim nature found a way, when it was already created that way from the start. Your claims of poor design are just that, empty claims, since what you claim as a poor design functions perfectly. And how much more so for the long necked dinosaurs that by your accounts shouldn't have worked at all. What you consider poor design, I consider excellent engineering since it worked perfectly for dinosaurs with necks up to three times as long. So in. Reality a giraffe is but a simpler version of wha t was already perfected in a more complex form.

Wrong again, giraffes are the product of evolution. Evolution works on the principal of "good enough". It is all but impossible for a species to reverse course. That is why mammals that have returned to the sea or only grossly similar to sea life. They had to evolve their own solutions since the old solutions were lost. An intelligent designer would not have the unnecessary detour in the first place. It would have been engineered differently from the start.
I know that you believe in God but that is no excuse to insult him the way that you have.

I understood just fine. You finally admitted new DNA can not be created, now your just trying to get out of it.

Never said nor implied that. In fact I explained to you how new DNA is made. Did you seriously not understand that very simple post? And like I said if you want answers you need to learn how to ask politely and properly. I should not have to remind you of something that you should have learned when you were five years old.

Perfect analogy, you just don't like the truth. Both gold, chlorine, and DNA are made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. One would expect similarities in both molecules and DNA. Which is what we observe as expected.

Wrong, once again gold and chlorine cannot reproduce. Your analogy fails right there. Until creationists understand science they should not attempt to make analogies. And if a person is a creationists it is rather obvious that they do not understand the scientific method.

You claimed it by claiming mutation was not random. If it's not random it's by design. Make up your mind what you believe, if that's even possible. You change your story every other post.

No, I did not claim that mutation was not random. You took that out of context at best. Once again when you do not understand something you need to ask questions politely and properly. That means one question per post. No Gish Gallops as you are so fond of doing. Do you think that you can do that? When you make so many errors in a post, as you have for several in a row now, people can only point out your errors and give a correction. Once cannot go into detail on ten different gross errors in one post

 

[joshua 1 9]

We have the ERV evidence

You remind me of the old records when they would get scratched and keep playing the same track over and over again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why do we keep hearing of this common ancestor that doesnt exist in any fossil record on any tree for any species?

It's existence is inferred from multiple lines of corroborating evidence.

And if you look them up you will find they have developed specific attack patterns to invade specific cells at specific points. So they would do it the exact same way millions and millions of times.

If that was the case, we wouldn't expect to find the ERVs exactly matching the hierarchical distribution of heritable mutations, which also matches the hierarchical distribution of phenotypic similarities, also supported by the differences across geographical and environmental contexts, and further back in time, the paleontological and geological evidence showing creatures showing patterns of differences consistent with populations becoming geographically isolated and becoming increasingly different over time.

When multiple independent lines of evidence support the same story, it's possible that some of the story details are incorrect or missing, but there's no doubt that the fundamental thrust of the story is correct.

So chimps are more closely related to humans than to themselves?

No, you've misunderstood what was said; try reading it again, more carefully.

... if it only makes changes to what already exists, then the belief of simple to complex is a fantasy.

No; a moment's thought will tell you that complexity is the result of simple things interacting.

So now evolution is a planned thing? A thinking, acting intelligence????? A design?
...
So evolution now decides which gene to mutate? Now you have elevated it to a thinking process? Might as well just turn it into a god while you are at it or is that the next step in the evolutionary plan?

No. 'Not random' doesn't imply planned, thinking, or intelligent. Many natural processes have non-random results (e.g. consider how crystals form). The effects of natural selection on a population are not random, they act like a force, the 'selection pressure', that modifies the population in some direction; for example, if the climate gets colder, those individuals best able to cope with cold will be less likely to die before reproducing; likewise the offspring that inherit their resilience, and over many generations of individuals selected for cold resistance, the population will be more cold resistant (if it doesn't die out).

You are making the claim they are separate species not me. it is up to the claimant to prove his case. I claim most are just infraspecific taxa within the species as we see all around us everyday.

You can call all creatures infraspecific taxa if you like, it won't change their relationships, it will just make it harder to conveniently distinguish closely related lineages from distantly related ones.

 

[AV1611VET]

You remind me of the old records when they would get scratched and keep playing the same track over and over again.

All their evidence is going to leave them hanging at the Great White Throne Judgment.

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

And eventually go up like wood, hay, and stubble.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You remind me of the old records when they would get scratched and keep playing the same track over and over again.

That is only because you seem to have trouble understanding an idea only slightly more difficult than 2 + 2 = 4. What part of the ERV evidence do you not understand?

 

[Strathos]

Maybe you believe in a God who would plant false evidence to deceive people and punish them for believing it, but that's not what the Bible teaches.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you believe in a God who would plant false evidence to deceive people and punish them for believing it, but that's not what the Bible teaches.

Were you talking to me?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Were you talking to me?

 

[Kylie]

Then why do we keep hearing of this common ancestor that doesnt exist in any fossil record on any tree for any species?

Because there is a ton of DNA evidence supporting it.

Except you have neither the cousin, the neighbor or the great great grand parents.

Do you have a great great great great great grandmother? Yes? Show me her grave. You can't? Maybe you don't have one after all.

Apparently you have enough to claim the offshoots of this common ancestor, so certainly you can tell what was the common ancestor. If you have the neighbor and the cousin, then isnt the great grandparent all that is left?

I'm sorry, when has anyone ever said that?

But thats the problem, you have designated the neighbor and the cousin as separater species.

Man, you really don't get evolution. We have a bunch of old bones, we know one is the great grandparent, one os the cousin and one is the neighbour. But since we can't get DNA from them, we can't tell which was which.

And if you look them up you will find they have developed specific attack patterns to invade specific cells at specific points. So they would do it the exact same way millions and millions of times. If you had a lockpick designed for a specific lock, would you then try to unlock locks it was not designed to unlock?

There is more than one way to do something. If you want to open a locked door, you can try picking the lock, or you can get a saw and cut out the section of the door that contains the lock, or you can make a hole, stick your arm in and unlock it from the inside...

So chimps are more closely related to humans than to themselves? If you say so. But of course A is more closely related to A than to B, what did you expect?

Wow, are you determined to make a strawman? I never said that. I said the GENE for chimp blood type A is more closely related to the GENE for human blood type A than it is to the GENE for chimp blood type B.

I'm talking about individual genes, not the whole animal.

Why wouldnt He? They do not eat the same foods, do not have the same antibodies against diseases, etc.

Yeah, it's not like cats eat meat like we humans do...

Ill highlight the important part you actually admitted to. So if it only makes changes to what already exists, then the belief of simple to complex is a fantasy. You seem to understand this but then will try to double talk your way out of what you just admitted to.

Wow, you really don't understand evolution.

I can take a flat sheet of paper and turn it into a complex paper plane with just a few folds. I don't need to add anything or alter the paper in any way. I can even reverse my actions and get back to the flat sheet of paper. Don't tell me that evolution can't do it.

Except gold and chlorine shar the same similarities, yet gold does not require chlorine to exist and vice versa. That all are made of the same protons, neutron and electrons as is everything, one would expect similarities. You just confuse this as common decent.

No. Just no. You do not understand science at all.

So now evolution is a planned thing? A thinking, acting intelligence????? A design?

Things can be non-random without being thinking intelligent things.

So evolution now decides which gene to mutate? Now you have elevated it to a thinking process? Might as well just turn it into a god while you are at it or is that the next step in the evolutionary plan?

No, it fiddles with everything, but only the changes that create a benefit get passed on. Because the genes that cause harm generally kill their owners before they can breed!

You are making the claim they are separate species not me. it is up to the claimant to prove his case. I claim most are just infraspecific taxa within the species as we see all around us everyday. The preponderance of the evidence is on my side, not yours.

Yes, when we look at a fossil of a T. rex and the fossil of a Triceratops, yeah, they're probably the same species after all... *Rolls eyes*

But I am not claiming that we came from an entirely different species. You are.

Wow, you must have missed the bit where I was talking about a common ancestor.

I claim we have always been human and will always be human.

The evidence disagrees with you.

I claim that it takes two to create new infraspecific taxa. Im not claiming single cell organisms with completely different genetic types than ours magically became ours, even when you finally admitted above that only what already exists is changed - nullifying your own claims of new DNA arising where it didnt exist before.

Different genetic types? All life is based on DNA because all life evolved from a common ancestor that had DNA. Like I said, evolution just makes changes with what's there, so it couldn't get rid of DNA and replace it with something completely different.

And as for new sections of DNA, gene duplication is a thing, you know.

You know very little about science and even less about evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

You can state anything you like, but until you fix your incorrect classifications in which you have all the different infraspecific taxa incorrectly listed as separate species, it's all meaningless gibberish.

You keep saying this but you haven't actually demonstrated it. Can you provide any examples from the fossil record?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You remind me of the old records when they would get scratched and keep playing the same track over and over again.

And yet, the creationists on this side still haven't understood it, it seems.

Idd, it is repeated ad nauseum... Only to be left unchallenged, ignored and burried in the pages.

The only reason it needs to be repeated every other post, is because creationists tend to forget about it every other post.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, the creationists on this side still haven't understood it, it seems.

Educatees are worse.

They are familiar with general relativity; yet they refuse to use it so they can claim Joshua spoke of geocentrism.

When [the late] Henry Morris pointed out their error, they buried their heads in the sand and repeated the same old/same old later on elsewhere.

At least creationist have an excuse: it seems they haven't understood it (according to you).

Educatees do understand general relativity, yet refuse to use it.

So which is worse?

Making a mistake because you didn't understand something, or making a mistake because you suspended what you understand?