Proof???!!!!!

[Loudmouth]

Reptiles do not cross species and become foul.

"Reptiles" and "foul" are not the names of species. However, all reptiles and foul are amniotes and vertebrates, so where is the problem? How does this disprove evolution?

Monkeys dont cross species and become Human.

Again, "Monkeys" and "Human" are not names of species. However, all monkeys and humans are primates so where is the problem? How does this disprove evolution?

Here are some links for you.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Evolution_Facts.htm

It's hard to have a discussion with a website.
At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. With nature doing the selection, evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. We are told that the selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied mutations from among which the selection by survival takes place. [/quote]

Random mutations produce variety. Natural selection provides a non-random mechanism by which variations are perpetuated in a population. Evolution is best described as a stochastic process.

The question is: Can random mutations produce the evolution of life?

It certainly produces variation, which is all anyone claims it does.

Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA," and environmental conditions -- all these affect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology. And these are all unknowns.

How does this falsify evolution?

From a secular view, one must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal.

That is asked all of the time, and in some circumstances it is actually measured.

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable.

Non-viable orgnaisms do not reproduce, so where is the problem again? You have about 150 point mutations not found in either of your parents. How do you explain this?

At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved.

It is impossible to evolve new phyla in the same way that it is impossible for you to have new grandparents.

At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.

What you fail to mention is that hundreds and hundreds of Orders, Classes, Families, and Genera have evolved since the Cambrian and Permian extinction. How do you explain this?

It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992).

The answer is probably yes. But this has to do with developmental biology.

It is difficult and painful to discard entrenched notions of what is actually true, even when scientific data demand such an abandonment.

This is quite ironic coming from a creationist.

Pure randomness as the source of the mutations that neo-Darwinian concepts demand to drive the evolution of life no longer stands against the mounting evidence of scientific data.

Actually, yes they do. Do a google for "Luria Delbruck fluctuation assay" and "Lederberg plate replica experiment". Both of these experiments plainly show that mutations appear before they are needed and are indepedent of fitness.

Unfortunately, the emotional commitment to a totally materialist view of life makes discarding this notion problematic.
Let's look at the likelihood that random mutations could have produced viable forms of life. Life as we know it is built largely of combinations of proteins working in symbiotic harmony. But as we've seen, only certain combinations produce viable life. Other combinations fail.

There are billions of species, and each species is made up of a genetically diverse population. It would seem that the number of viable combinations is probably in the billions of billions.

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. It is estimated that there are some 30 animal phyla on Earth. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower.)
Now let's consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that the events following the Cambrian explosion of animal life and the later decimation of 90% of life taught us that only certain combinations of proteins are viable.

There is so much wrong here that it would take an hour to point them all out. What you are ignoring is that homologous proteins are not identical, gene regulation is an important factor in determining morphology, and that the species which survived an extinction event are not the only possible body plans.

Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!

Your 3 million protein number is completely wrong. Therefore, everything else stemming from it is wrong.

Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct.

Who is the "our". YOUR understanding of statistics is wrong. Don't project your mistakes onto us.

 

[Carey]

"Reptiles" and "foul" are not the names of species. However, all reptiles and foul are amniotes and vertebrates, so where is the problem? How does this disprove evolution?



Again, "Monkeys" and "Human" are not names of species. However, all monkeys and humans are primates so where is the problem? How does this disprove evolution?




It's hard to have a discussion with a website.
At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. With nature doing the selection, evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. We are told that the selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied mutations from among which the selection by survival takes place.

Random mutations produce variety. Natural selection provides a non-random mechanism by which variations are perpetuated in a population. Evolution is best described as a stochastic process.




It certainly produces variation, which is all anyone claims it does.



How does this falsify evolution?



That is asked all of the time, and in some circumstances it is actually measured.



Non-viable orgnaisms do not reproduce, so where is the problem again? You have about 150 point mutations not found in either of your parents. How do you explain this?



It is impossible to evolve new phyla in the same way that it is impossible for you to have new grandparents.



What you fail to mention is that hundreds and hundreds of Orders, Classes, Families, and Genera have evolved since the Cambrian and Permian extinction. How do you explain this?



The answer is probably yes. But this has to do with developmental biology.



This is quite ironic coming from a creationist.



Actually, yes they do. Do a google for "Luria Delbruck fluctuation assay" and "Lederberg plate replica experiment". Both of these experiments plainly show that mutations appear before they are needed and are indepedent of fitness.



There are billions of species, and each species is made up of a genetically diverse population. It would seem that the number of viable combinations is probably in the billions of billions.



There is so much wrong here that it would take an hour to point them all out. What you are ignoring is that homologous proteins are not identical, gene regulation is an important factor in determining morphology, and that the species which survived an extinction event are not the only possible body plans.



Your 3 million protein number is completely wrong. Therefore, everything else stemming from it is wrong.



Who is the "our". YOUR understanding of statistics is wrong. Don't project your mistakes onto us.[/quote]

Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct.

 

[Chalnoth]

Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct.

See, you make this statement, but then don't post any numbers to back it up. If the statistics show that evolution can't do this, then clearly somebody had to have done some calculations to show that. Can you present those calculations?

 

[Carey]

See, you make this statement, but then don't post any numbers to back it up. If the statistics show that evolution can't do this, then clearly somebody had to have done some calculations to show that. Can you present those calculations?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x 1012 ) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20300 or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10390 . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10390 proteins, the 1.5 x 1012 proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.
[/FONT]

 

[Chalnoth]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x 1012 ) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20300 or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10390 . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10390 proteins, the 1.5 x 1012 proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.
[/FONT]

This is incorrect on a variety of levels. Most importantly of all, it doesn't address the point to which I was responding: that of the statistics of the Cambrian explosion.

Anyway, here's the fundamental problem with your assumption: we don't know the full space of viable proteins. There is no reason whatsoever why life on Earth need have found even the tiniest portion of the total number of viable proteins. Your probability estimate is as good as, say, rolling six die and coming up with the numbers 2, 1, 3, 3, 6, 2, and exclaiming that the result of 2, 1, 3, 3, 6, 2 is extremely unlikely that it couldn't have happened by chance. This is why post-hoc probability estimates are nonsense: you don't gape in awe when you get a result from rolling a bunch of dice, because you knew you were going to get some result. That the result you got is only one of a large number of possible results is not interesting in the least.

 

[Carey]

This is incorrect on a variety of levels. Most importantly of all, it doesn't address the point to which I was responding: that of the statistics of the Cambrian explosion.

Anyway, here's the fundamental problem with your assumption: we don't know the full space of viable proteins. There is no reason whatsoever why life on Earth need have found even the tiniest portion of the total number of viable proteins. Your probability estimate is as good as, say, rolling six die and coming up with the numbers 2, 1, 3, 3, 6, 2, and exclaiming that the result of 2, 1, 3, 3, 6, 2 is extremely unlikely that it couldn't have happened by chance. This is why post-hoc probability estimates are nonsense: you don't gape in awe when you get a result from rolling a bunch of dice, because you knew you were going to get some result. That the result you got is only one of a large number of possible results is not interesting in the least.

You know I know of many scientist who would disagree with you.

Maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around.

Amphibians didn’t evolve into reptiles

The alleged evolution of reptiles from amphibians is difficult for the theory of evolution to explain. For a water-loving amphibian to change into a land-dwelling reptile, at least two major life-affecting changes would be needed.
The first has to do with skin. An amphibian's skin lacks protective devices to stop it from drying out. This forces it to live in water or very humid places. Some amphibians have a type of thin scale in their skin, but this offers no protection against drying out. Reptiles have a different type of scale altogether, made of keratin, or horn. It lies in the outer layer of their skin and is tough enough to prevent desiccation.
There is no convincing evidence from either biology or fossils that such a transformation took place.
Egg problem!

The second major barrier to an amphibian's turning into a reptile has to do with eggs.
An amphibian, hatching from an aquatic egg, develops in water in the larval form known as a tadpole. Reptiles, however, are born with all the functioning structures of an adult. This applies even to marine reptiles. They do not develop gills, or the series of sense organs needed by a tadpole, which must be resorbed and reworked into other structures as it turns into an adult.
How such remarkable evolutionary changes supposedly took place has never been satisfactorily demonstrated. The fact is, we don't believe that reptiles did, or could, evolve from amphibians. The Bible's explanation — that God created them — has never been disproved.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/amphrep.html

 

[Chalnoth]

You know I know of many scientist who would disagree with you.

Maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around.

Amphibians didn’t evolve into reptiles

The alleged evolution of reptiles from amphibians is difficult for the theory of evolution to explain. For a water-loving amphibian to change into a land-dwelling reptile, at least two major life-affecting changes would be needed.
The first has to do with skin. An amphibian's skin lacks protective devices to stop it from drying out. This forces it to live in water or very humid places. Some amphibians have a type of thin scale in their skin, but this offers no protection against drying out. Reptiles have a different type of scale altogether, made of keratin, or horn. It lies in the outer layer of their skin and is tough enough to prevent desiccation.
There is no convincing evidence from either biology or fossils that such a transformation took place.
Egg problem!

The second major barrier to an amphibian's turning into a reptile has to do with eggs.
An amphibian, hatching from an aquatic egg, develops in water in the larval form known as a tadpole. Reptiles, however, are born with all the functioning structures of an adult. This applies even to marine reptiles. They do not develop gills, or the series of sense organs needed by a tadpole, which must be resorbed and reworked into other structures as it turns into an adult.
How such remarkable evolutionary changes supposedly took place has never been satisfactorily demonstrated. The fact is, we don't believe that reptiles did, or could, evolve from amphibians. The Bible's explanation — that God created them — has never been disproved.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/amphrep.html

Yup, more creationist claptrap. Yes, those are two obstacles the reptiles had to overcome. But really, these aren't even hard evolutionary obstacles. It is no problem at all for the skin of an amphibian to get progressively thicker so that it retains more water, as its lifestyle slowly moves away from the water. Heck, we know of a number of amphibians alive today that live most of their adult lives outside of the water, such as toads. This isn't an issue in the least.

The same goes for the eggs: at the time when reptiles were evolving, there were no significant predators on land: all the big animals were in the water. So an amphibian that could lay its eggs on land would be at a huge advantage. Driven by this pressure, some amphibians would have progressively laid their eggs in drier and drier areas, while at the same time the shells would get thicker and thicker, until finally they could lay their eggs on dry land. Such an animal would be at a tremendous advantage, at least at first, compared to an amphibian whose eggs would be under constant threat from predators.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same goes for the eggs: at the time when reptiles were evolving, there were no significant predators on land: all the big animals were in the water. So an amphibian that could lay its eggs on land would be at a huge advantage. Driven by this pressure, some amphibians would have progressively laid their eggs in drier and drier areas, while at the same time the shells would get thicker and thicker, until finally they could lay their eggs on dry land. Such an animal would be at a tremendous advantage, at least at first, compared to an amphibian whose eggs would be under constant threat from predators.

Wouldn't someone step on them by mistake?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wouldn't someone step on them by mistake?

Wouldn't that be a significantly smaller risk than someone eating them on purpose?

 

[tanzanos]

If creationists deny evolution and insist on Adam and Eve; then perhaps they can explain the various traits humans exhibit in the different races? Africans are Dark skinned and have short curly hair. Australian aborigines are dark skinned and have long blonde hair, The north Europeans are very light skinned and have light coloured eyes, whereas the American Indians and the Chinese have long straight dark hair and slightly darker skin. BUT we are one species. Surely evolution played a part here! More sunlight will produce a darker skin. Prolonged exposure for many generations and it becomes embedded in the genetic code.

This alone is proof of evolution if ever there was one. Also not forgetting that we humans have the same blood type as chimpanzees and bonobos; and can inter-transfuse blood between the species.

AV1 your disagreement on this is already noted and has been dispatched to the F.S.M for review

 

[Carey]

If creationists deny evolution and insist on Adam and Eve; then perhaps they can explain the various traits humans exhibit in the different races? Africans are Dark skinned and have short curly hair. Australian aborigines are dark skinned and have long blonde hair, The north Europeans are very light skinned and have light coloured eyes, whereas the American Indians and the Chinese have long straight dark hair and slightly darker skin. BUT we are one species. Surely evolution played a part here! More sunlight will produce a darker skin. Prolonged exposure for many generations and it becomes embedded in the genetic code.

This alone is proof of evolution if ever there was one. Also not forgetting that we humans have the same blood type as chimpanzees and bonobos; and can inter-transfuse blood between the species.

AV1 your disagreement on this is already noted and has been dispatched to the F.S.M for review

The great scientist ( God ) made a tset tube Baby ( Adam )
the made a slightly altered clone ( Eve ).

Then later altered the dna of certain idividuals creating the different races.

And all creatures on earth came from the same dirt or dna and are altered by the great scientist God.

Is this so hard to understand??

 

[Chalnoth]

The great scientist ( God ) made a tset tube Baby ( Adam )
the made a slightly altered clone ( Eve ).

Then later altered the dna of certain idividuals creating the different races.

And all creatures on earth came from the same dirt or dna and are altered by the great scientist God.

Is this so hard to understand??

No, it's not. And that's the problem. It's too easy. It's too simple. Reality isn't like that. Reality is complex and subtle. Reality takes time and effort to understand. You don't appear to be putting any effort. You've already decided what you want to believe, and now you're just searching for things to support your preconceived notions.

 

[Blayz]

While bacteria are known to be able to 'borrow' DNA from other bacteria, eukaryotes, because of their nucleus and stronger cell walls cannot.

The irony being one of your fellow creationists pointed to recent evidence of a lot of lateral gene transfer as evidence against evolution.

In other words:
Guzzman: Eukaryotes have a lot of gene transfer, therefore evolution is wrong
Carey: Eukaryotes have no gene transfer, therefore evolution is wrong.

 

[FishFace]

You know I know of many scientist who would disagree with you.

Maybe this will be easier for you to wrap your mind around.

Amphibians didn’t evolve into reptiles

The alleged evolution of reptiles from amphibians is difficult for the theory of evolution to explain. For a water-loving amphibian to change into a land-dwelling reptile, at least two major life-affecting changes would be needed.
The first has to do with skin. An amphibian's skin lacks protective devices to stop it from drying out. This forces it to live in water or very humid places. Some amphibians have a type of thin scale in their skin, but this offers no protection against drying out. Reptiles have a different type of scale altogether, made of keratin, or horn. It lies in the outer layer of their skin and is tough enough to prevent desiccation.
There is no convincing evidence from either biology or fossils that such a transformation took place.
Egg problem!

The second major barrier to an amphibian's turning into a reptile has to do with eggs.
An amphibian, hatching from an aquatic egg, develops in water in the larval form known as a tadpole. Reptiles, however, are born with all the functioning structures of an adult. This applies even to marine reptiles. They do not develop gills, or the series of sense organs needed by a tadpole, which must be resorbed and reworked into other structures as it turns into an adult.
How such remarkable evolutionary changes supposedly took place has never been satisfactorily demonstrated. The fact is, we don't believe that reptiles did, or could, evolve from amphibians. The Bible's explanation — that God created them — has never been disproved.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/amphrep.html

These "problems" are pathetic! Take the skin "problem." An amphibian must spend its life near water to avoid drying out and so cannot escape predators or find food far from water. Therefore if it takes longer to dry out, say by having thicker skin, it will be more successful. That's evolutionary pressure, so it evolves.

With tadpoles, all that has to happen is for more of the developmental stage to take place in the egg. Having a hard egg that could develop on land avoided all the animals looking for a tasty, protein-rich treat.

 

[tanzanos]

The great scientist ( God ) made a tset tube Baby ( Adam )
the made a slightly altered clone ( Eve ).

Then later altered the dna of certain idividuals creating the different races.

And all creatures on earth came from the same dirt or dna and are altered by the great scientist God.

Is this so hard to understand??

Hmmm! I admit I am having a hard time associating Dirt to DNA. Perhaps you can enlighten me by quoting where in the bible it states that God altered our DNA to create all the races?

 

[Carey]

No, it's not. And that's the problem. It's too easy. It's too simple. Reality isn't like that. Reality is complex and subtle. Reality takes time and effort to understand. You don't appear to be putting any effort. You've already decided what you want to believe, and now you're just searching for things to support your preconceived notions.

Noone would rather believe in God. He is too scary.

I tried not to believe but as I really looked and studied and looked and studied I kept having no choice but to realize the Bible is 100 % accurate and science just keeps proving it right.

 

[Carey]

Hmmm! I admit I am having a hard time associating Dirt to DNA. Perhaps you can enlighten me by quoting where in the bible it states that God altered our DNA to create all the races?

Dust + dna = man

Genesis 2 : 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Genesis 11 : 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

( now we have to assume prior to etheopia existing the skin was changed with the language. )

Jeremiah 13 : 23 Can the Ethiopian [b] change his skin
or the leopard its spots?

( here is another reference but race is not that important to God )

Lamentations 4 : 7 Their princes were brighter than snow
and whiter than milk,

8 But now they are blacker than soot;
they are not recognized in the streets




<H2>Dirt and DNA</H2>

In forensic science, soil is frequently encountered as trace evidence (e.g. on the sole of a shoe or the tread of a tyre), but detailed soil analysis is seldom carried out in routine forensic examination.
Scientists at ESR have developed a novel technique for soil analysis that extracts and profiles the DNA from the microbial communities that live in the soil.


http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/populationhealth/SoilDNA.htm

 

[Vene]

The irony being one of your fellow creationists pointed to recent evidence of a lot of lateral gene transfer as evidence against evolution.

In other words:
Guzzman: Eukaryotes have a lot of gene transfer, therefore evolution is wrong
Carey: Eukaryotes have no gene transfer, therefore evolution is wrong.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Don't you know, everything disproves evolution.

I'm waiting for a creationist to say that the sun is evidence against evolution.

 

[TheOutsider]

Dust + dna = man
http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/populationhealth/SoilDNA.htm

If man was created from dust and dirt than we would expect to see a large amount of silicon in our bodies. Instead we see lots of water and lots of carbon and less than 0.5% silicon.

 

[Carey]

If man was created from dust and dirt than we would expect to see a large amount of silicon in our bodies. Instead we see lots of water and lots of carbon and less than 0.5% silicon.

Are you familiar with the amount of dust the Great scientist ( God ) required in his scientific process of producing the first human??

I don't think God told us how much dust he used or the process in which he did it.

I think it is a trade secret ...