What about the DNA evidence?

[USincognito]

Like I said...

Good for you. Repeating a falsehood won't make it true however.

 

[USincognito]

Mary Schweitzer a prime example, who was afraid to present her findings, even when test after test after test confirmed her findings.

She was? When did that happen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

She was? When did that happen?

Had you watched the video, you would of heard her say that with her very own words, but hey, never bothering to read or listen is the evolutionists best defense.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said...

Why is evolution presently accepted?

• peer pressure
• government grants
• fear
• yuppyism
• sheep/herd instinct
• money
• ethical challenges

You could probably come up with a few others but that's the gist of it.

You have a very creative mind. I'm sure it comes in handy when needed.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps evolution is Satan way of saying God didn't create man i did.

That is a common default excuse.

When in doubt, blame it on satan.

 

[gungasnake]

We wont mention this totally destroys your theory of age, findings backed up by C-14 testing of recent origins. Sorry, wasn't supposed to mention that.

Three data points, all telling the same story: Soft tissue, radiocarbon dating, and petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said...

Why is evolution presently accepted?

• peer pressure
• government grants
• fear
• yuppyism
• sheep/herd instinct
• money
• ethical challenges

You could probably come up with a few others but that's the gist of it.

Another list of empty accusations. You will do anything to avoid dealing with the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about the DNA evidence, it merely shows what we have been telling you all along, no upward tree branching into multiple species. merely sideways variation (kind within kind).

From the orangutan genome paper:
Comparative and demographic analysis of orang-utan genomes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated'

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
"“I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”."

But you will continue to declare all is fine in evolution, when the molecular biologists seem to want to continually rewrite the tree, because it shows no upward branching. It shows only sideways variation, something you should have predicted since it has been observed with your very own eyes in cats and dogs which we changed within several generations, yet are still cats and dogs.

Your transitory species are not transitory, are in several instances merely the young of other dinosaur.
Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs - YouTube

And in all other cases either clearly wrong, when living examples are found:
"Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?" Walking fish that don't walk, man you guys will say anything in an attempt to prove your Fairie Dust theory.

or, when proper study is done they once again show how false your theory is:
"Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth". Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive". "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390. "Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird." "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published. This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory." "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found." "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution." But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs". "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release.
What evolutionists now know for sure is that their celebrity superstar was not a transitional creature after all."

The rest are just pieces of bone fragments rarely found close together that you imagine an entire species out of. You are mistaking variation within kinds as evolution, when the fossil record and the DNA evidence does not support your evolutionary tree. Face it, evolution went extinct.

Could you please cite a real scientific paper, please?

 

[Loudmouth]

Three data points, all telling the same story: Soft tissue, radiocarbon dating, and petroglyphs showing known dinosaur types.

Still avoiding the DNA evidence, I see.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or it could simply mean that creatures change appearance just like we have personally observed with dogs and cats yet still remain dogs and cats. But of course the observational evidence can not be accepted by evolutionists, because then they would need to admit that all their theories of species evolving into
other species is pure imagination.

We have the DNA evidence demonstrating that divergent species share a common ancestor. Why do you ignore it?

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Humans and chimps share 200,000 retroviral insertions at the same position in each genome. The only explanation is common ancestry.

Their own DNA testing has shown nothing but sideways branching (read kind after kind - just as in dogs and cats).

So humans are a sideways branch of apes? Are they also a sideways branch of primates, mammals, and vertebrates?

As I said in another post, when their theory is falsified they simply attempt to change the mechanism, while never once considering that it is the theory itself that is flawed.

What change in mechanism?

 

[bhsmte]

We have the DNA evidence demonstrating that divergent species share a common ancestor. Why do you ignore it?

First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences
​

Humans and chimps share 200,000 retroviral insertions at the same position in each genome. The only explanation is common ancestry.




So humans are a sideways branch of apes? Are they also a sideways branch of primates, mammals, and vertebrates?



What change in mechanism?

He ignores the DNA evidence, because he has to.

 

[mathetes123]

Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

DNA supports information and intelligent design.

 

[bhsmte]

DNA supports information and intelligent design.

If you really want it to, sure. But there is a problem, the scientists that know this stuff better than anyone, know the DNA evidence is potent evidence that supports evolution.

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[freezerman2000]

He ignores the DNA evidence, because he has to.

Because it may erode one's faith? It should broaden it,increasing the power of His creation.

 

[bhsmte]

Because it may erode one's faith? It should broaden it,increasing the power of His creation.

Well, his faith is different than yours and the DNA evidence doesn't fit his story.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA supports information and intelligent design.

How?

 

[freezerman2000]

Well, his faith is different than yours and the DNA evidence doesn't fit his story.

I agree.

 

[freezerman2000]

How?

That is what I want to hear about too..an orderly sequence I can understand for that argument,but there have been mutations that have raised red flags..
This is a small example minuscule to the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troglofauna ..frogs,fish and and other critters that have lost their eye sight and no longer have skin pigmentation all point to disruption and the mutation of DNA sequencing due to long term environmental conditions..
Change within a specie IS evolution!

 

[AV1611VET]

Which came first in the universe, Mr. Angels Team, life or non-life?

And by "life," I mean life that can be construed as "persons"?

If you [correctly] say "life" -- then evolution can take a hike.

And discussions about DNA and genomes and chromosomes and cells and genes and whatever else that has to be explained to us by those who have walked the halls of higher aceldama can go with it.