What is your best evidence for Evolution?

[MartinM]

But my take on it was that the author is saying that ERVS infect species independently.

Well, of course they can! It's not as if anyone ever claimed that inheritance from an ancestor is the only way to get an ERV insertion. If it was, how on earth would the ancestor have got it in the first place?

The point is that if an ERV infects multiple species independently, it leaves its mark in different places in each species. Whereas the descendants of any one species will retain that mark in the same place. So we can tell the difference between an ERV insertion shared because of multiple insertions into separate species, and an ERV insertion shared due to common ancestry.

 

[Sabina41]

My biology professsor:
"I feel like a lot of what we do is so we can win arguments with creationists."

 

[BananaSlug]

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Simply because it shows the evolution of whales with 9 independent lines of evidence.

 

[JohnR7]

John, the bones are right there, staring you in the face.

Are you actually trying to say that xray is for that baby? You are deceived. If you do not want to believe that there are no bones in that growth that you are calling a tail, then I am done, I am not going to try to argue with you about it. I don't believe it at all. There are no bones in that growth.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BananaSlug]

I actually agree with John, (on the no bones part). The pic of the Indian baby is a boy, whose fleshy tail contains no bones. The pic of the tail with bones is that from a girl. Other than that, yes there are babies born with tails complete with bones!

 

[BananaSlug]

http://www.stargods.org/Evidence%20of%20a%20non-human.htm

Teehee!

 

[Moros]

The platypus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you actually trying to say that xray is for that baby? You are deceived.

No one is claiming that John. The x-ray is from a different individual. The pictures only contrast the difference between a false tail and a true tail.

If you do not want to believe that there are no bones in that growth that you are calling a tail, then I am done, I am not going to try to argue with you about it. I don't believe it at all. There are no bones in that growth.

No one is saying that the baby and the x-ray are one and the same. The x-ray shows bones. I really don't understand how you can ignore such obvious evidence, that is unless you have a religious stake that blinds you from reality.

 

[nvxplorer]

The platypus.

The platypus is so unique, it is obviously God’s special creation. And all this time we thought it was us.

 

[Ampoliros]

Are you actually trying to say that xray is for that baby? You are deceived. If you do not want to believe that there are no bones in that growth that you are calling a tail, then I am done, I am not going to try to argue with you about it. I don't believe it at all. There are no bones in that growth.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

No, I am not saying that, John. You quoted the x-ray and wrote:

There are no bones in this tail. This is the sort of deception we have come to expect from evolutionists.

What I took this to mean was that you thought that the x-ray contained no bones, which I took to be a strange statement indeed. If you were referring to the child in your photo, then I don't really know if it has bones in it or not.

 

[joliefillefrChrist]

Did you know that 1.56 trillion years ago I was a blob of goo?
You sure wouldn't know it look at me now.

 

[nvxplorer]

Did you know that 1.56 trillion years ago I was a blob of goo?
You sure wouldn't know it look at me now.

Do you believe in reincarnation, or are you a 1.56 trillion year old changeling?

 

[Split Rock]

Did you know that 1.56 trillion years ago I was a blob of goo?
You sure wouldn't know it look at me now.

Sadly, this is the best refutation of the evidence for evolution I have seen so far in this thread.