Yep. There is several different studies that all point to the logical conclusion that evolution explains the diversity of life. Fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology, DNA & genetics, observations in the lab and in nature. Where would you like to begin? You clearly don't have much of an understanding of the topic.
Let's do DNA.
What on earth are you even talking about? This is a nonsensical question that you've asked more than twice. What exactly are you expecting to see? We share a common ancestor with chimps. This is seen in the fossil record and in the comparison of our genomes. It's an irrefutable fact. I think you need to explain in detail, what exactly you need to see that is convincing to you. It just sounds like you don't understand how DNA works.
You said irrefutable fact, how so? Just because us and chimps share more common features than other animals, or we share a lot of ERVs does not mean we share a common ancestor. If you can show me how a common DNA can mutate to both human and chimp DNA naturally, you have irrefutable evidence.
Just saying 2 DNAs are simlar does not mean anything, all living been's DNA are similar, I forget the percentage, I remember the fruit fly's DNA is 80% common to us. Show me how you can mutate a strand of DNA from on to another in a repeatable, testable way, then you got evidence.
We're not talking about abiogenesis. Once you understand that the origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, the conversation can move forward. I sent you a research paper about self replicating RNA several posts back and you can open a separate thread if you wish to discuss abiogenesis.
So without abiogenesis, how did life start? Unless you say it is God, evolution is tied to abiogenesis.
If we can't even understand how life starts, how do we make the claim we understand evolution? How did we test it? Your self replicating RNA is some enzyne "Evolved", not created out of raw materials. The best we can do is an RNA that replicates half of itself.
We can do a DNA test to see how closely related we are to each other, just as we can look at genomes to two species side by side and determine how closely related we are.
Agreed to certain point. fruit fly share about 60% of human DNA, does a fruit fly look 60% like a human? Does fruit fly closer to humans than other animals?
Not even close to supporting creation. If you ever see the user "LoudMouth" on here, I do think his area of expertise is ERVs, you could ask him in more detail and there are a couple threads by him on ERVs. Anyway....retroviruses insert all over the genome. The chances of two ERV inserations happening at the same base is quite low. We find a high percentage of ERVs at the same location in two genomes. This means they were inherited from a common ancestor.
I was thinking about the ERVs at one point, and realized the ERV may or may not be used as a timeline event, does the virus only infect certain DNAs? if so, it could because the DNAs are infected by virus at different times. Else if you can't find a human with differnt ERVs, that can only mean we are designed and ERVs are a way for God to engineer our DNAs to a certain way.
Any time a fact is presented to you, you twist that fact into something else.
Show me how I did that.
How would you define something "new"? Are you expecting a new species? You're not going to see that from one mutation. Mutations happen all the time and they are determined to be positive, negative or neutral depending on the context of the environment. Perhaps looking at your own anatomy and other species anatomy that demonstrates evolution. Why do whales have vestigial hip and leg bones? They're evolved from four legged land mammals. Why do you have a tail bone? Why is your jaw too small for wisdom teeth? Why do chickens have a gene that grows teeth but they have no teeth? Why do you have a gene that naturally produces vitamin C but your body won't produce it?
I am not expecting that in one generation. The e.coli evolution experiement happened over 60k generations, we didn't see any new germs come out of the mix.
From an engineer's perspective, the leg bones etc could well be what we do for a top down design, borrow from existing libraries
However the vitamin C could well mean our genes are much better than what we have right now, and we degraded over time instead of evolved. How come in ancient small tribes incest does not produce bad offsprings? We don't have as many defects then.
If it was based on evidence, you wouldn't need faith.
Yes I do, because there can't be actual prove, I believe it by what I observed and derived.
Once again, we're not talking about abiogenesis. The answer to the questions regarding the origin of life is "I don't know". You're committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity. "I don't understand it or science doesn't know the answer, therefore God". That is an inefficient way to acquire knowledge. We need to stay on topic of evolution. Now that it's been explained that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, we shouldn't have to go back to your RNA question.
Think about it, if we can't even know how life started (which should be much simpler than the evolve of comples DNAs), how do we assert we know how DNA evolves? How come there is no wide spread compatibly between animals? if some animals can stay not evolved for millions of years, we should see much more speiceias right now right? Or at least it should not be this difficult to interbreed animals.
