Likely, someone already refuted you, but I'm too lazy to check.
Protos said:
What's basically being said here is that we have similar genetic markers with the other great apes as point A states. If you haven't noticed ferns should be identical to us if it wasn't for the difference in chromosomes in each sex cell. Otherwise everything else checks out exactly the same as us. My biology teacher said that this was because we were all genetically related due to our common 64-base DNA composition, which suggested as she said that, "Life found one way, and stuck with it." At the time I may have still believed in evolution, but I remember thinking that it was stupid.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. I believe what you're trying to say is that humans and ferns have similar DNA; the only difference being the number of chromosomes. This argument does not refute the point about ERVs at all, but I'll continue anyway. Humans and ferns have extremely varying DNA. The first point in the OP was about shared ERVs at common locations, so I'll provide an example related to ERVs. Humans have many unique ERVs that ferns do not.
Try and understand ERVs better before attacking it by stating that humans and ferns have extremely similar DNA, disregarding the number of chromosomes.
Hardly. Buho was referring to something completely different. The tails the OP were referring to were tails with bone, muscle, nerve tissue, and other tissue.
Point 3:
With a set of false premises I can make a relation between metals evolving from nonmetals (Which I know happens from nuclear reactions, but for argument's sake, non-nuclear reaction such as the time-based old false belief of alchemy). I can say that since all the lighter elements are non metals and later on come the metals, that eventually nonmetals became metals and thus the hierarchical branch of chemistry is solved by the initial notion that since all nonmetals came first, then they must be the source of the creation of metals (Which I know happens in stars).
I don't know how this is an accurate analogy. The OP states that YEC, OEC, or ID do not predict the existence of nested heirarchies, while the Theory of Evolution does. Come to think of it, YEC, OEC, and ID do not predict anything.
If you're wondering about this "prediction" stuff, I suggest you read up on the Philosophy of science, as it is likely that you have not yet taken any courses on it.
Point 4: For all you know those could be deformed monkey skulls. There have been so few found that it's unlikely that they are anything which evolution boasts them to be. In fact there is almost no evidence on the transmutation of species by fossils that this area of evolution is rarely mentioned.
Please explain how monkey skulls can be deformed, as you say. In addition, there are many old skulls in existence.
And don't forget other fossils - an earlier poster mentioned invertibrate fossils.
As can be seen here, evolutionist change things around as much as they claim Creationists do to conform their theory even though unsupported by evidence:
5: Lamarck made the theory of gradualism of the change of the Earth's surface through geological processes. He is one of the people Darwin stole from.
Lamarck's theories were preposterous. (
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/lamarckism.html) His model of change in species was that body parts that an organism used more became bigger or more functional and adapted to what they were doing, and then these changes were passes on to their offspring. Thus, all species were getting gradually more "perfect." By his views humans were the pinnacle of perfection and all species would gradually change to become humans. Modern genetics now show that genetic information is stored in DNA, which does not change (or is not supposed to). Fitness, muscular strength, etc. is not passed down to an organism's offspring.
Darwin's theory of evolution is completely different from Lamarck's ideas and concurs with modern biology and genetics. The idea that species change were around long before Darwin arrived. Most scientists agreed that species changed over time. The question was: how? So, he did not "steal" from Lamarck, rather, find an explanation for a fact largely accepted.
Also, about evolutionists changing the facts: the facts themselves aren't changing, although new facts are being found. What is really changing is the theory, which changes to explain the facts better. If you have any more questions about the scientific method, I suggest you read up on the philosophy of science and the scientific method.
6: Keep in mind that I used to be an evolutionist, so my mind is in no way biased on this matter. Fossils cannot be facts for evolution and they aren't. Evolution is a theory that proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support the same theory.
About your claim that since a theory is meant to explain evidence, the evidence cannot be used to support the theory, I'll simply provide an example. The theory of gravity predicts and explains that things on earth will fall towards the center of the earth. Since things really DO fall towards the center, that cannot be used as evidence for the theory of gravity. What you propose is that all evidence predicted or explained by a theory cannot be used as evidence. Because of this, if scientists followed what you say, all theories would have no evidence. Again, I'll suggest you read up on the scientific method.
This is a point that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned as I recently read it in Darwin's: The origin of species. Embryology:
He stated that some earlier species would seem to have no relation with the horse, but when examined in the womb, all evidence is that all species that are with hoofs were related.
On that, no comment, but as for the question of if evolution was wrong then why has it stuck around so long despite the vast amounts of scientists and populice who were willing to disprove that, who were ardently believing in God.
Although that last sentence didn't ring out in falsity, I'm going to have to say one thing: Christians can believe in evolution, and ardent believers can believe in evolution.
Well the geocentric theory survived 1,500 years, ironically under the Church, that made the people believe it, but in time it was disproven. Unfortunately Nicholas Coppernicus' book at the opening page was written that it was mere fiction, which to his joy he didn't see.
How does this have any bearing on evolution? The geocentric 'theory' was made long before the scientific method came around. At that point, evidence supported both geocentrism and heliocentrism and therefore there was no reason to assume geocentrism, and therefore geocentrism was assumed.
Evolution is different: evidence supports evolution moreso than YEC, OEC, or ID and now we have the scientific method. As an example, ERVs do not support YEC, OEC, or ID and none of the latter are scientific theories, yet ERVs support the Theory of Evolution, which
is a scientific theory.
As for a challange:
A direct quote from
The Origin of Species
It is just possible by the theory, that one of two living forms might have descended from the other; for instance, a horse from a tapir; and in this case direct intermediate links will have existed between them. But such a case would imply that one form had remained for a very long period unaltered, whilst its descendants had undergone a vast amount of change; and the principle of competition between organism adn organism, between child and parent, will render this a very rare event; for in all cases the new and improved forms of life tend to supplant the old and unimproved forms.
By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the natural and domestic barieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with a more ancient forms; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.
In other words ladies and gents, no explanation as to why or how all the species we supposedly evolved from stayed behind.
It is obvious you do not understand the passage you're citing. Darwin is saying that it is
possible that one species existing today may have descended from another species existing today, but that it is unlikely and has no explanation for.
The species humans evolved from did
not stay behind, a common misconception made about evolution.
Learn more about the Theory of Evolution before trying to dispute a (150 year old) passage using misconceptions and strawmen.
Further more:
He meant that some even though protected came out distorted.
I don't see how this attacks evolution. Would you care to explain using more than vague one-liners?
This is the real reason why evolution is really going nowhere.
If
this is the reason why evolution isn't going anywhere then we're set to go.
Just so you know, it is going places. I have to go now, so I'll provide examples later.
Before doubting evolution, I hope you learn more about it. Many or most Creationists doubt evolution due to a lack of understanding.
I hope you try to understand Evolution better in the future.
