What is the best scientific evidence in favor of evolution as taught in public schools?

Question

What is the best scientific evidence in favor of evolution as taught in public schools?

Answer 1

I pose a very, very simple question to you, relating primarily to point 4.



Why is human chromosome 2 clearly the fusion of two other chromosomes?



Why do humans and all higher apes share the same deletions in their l-gulonolactone oxidase gene (vitamin C sythase)?



Why do humans and chimpanzees share 14 retrovirus insertion events, given that the viruses insert randomly?



Propose any model that explains these observations. Then do an experiment to test your model.



This is how science works. This is what evolution does. It offers a model that explains all available evidence and forms a foundation for future work.



No other theory can do the same. Which is why there are no opposing models being discussed in the scientific literature. Since it works and has no competition, why would evolution not be taught in schools?



If you really want to challenge evolution, you need to stop sitting around and get data. Creationists simply do not try, while real scientists are compiling mountains of genomic data that all support common descent.



To quickly round out your other "complaints."

1: Not evolution, look up abiogenesis.

2: Given the full range of mutations possible, the observed creation of new genes, ect, combined with the unmistakable pattern across taxa, this is fully supported by evidence.

3: This isn't what is taught. No respectable biologist would forget the importance of genetic drift in speciation. Again, all genomic data points to this conclusion, which is independently confirmed by several other sources of data, most notably the fossil record.

5: Ignoring absolute dating, why are dinosaurs never found with any modern animal ever? Why are there several thousand complete ecosystems that are never found intermingled?

6: Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and argon-argon dating are three of more than a dozen radiometric dating series that all agree on the age of the Earth being 4,500,000,000. Helioseismology provides a similar date for the sun's age. You think the earth is nearly a 1,000,000 times younger. How do you account for this massive amount of error in several different disciplines? Are we all lying to you?



That what all of this boils down to. You disagree with the findings of several million scientists over the last several centuries, so you claim we are all lying to everyone about everything....for some vague reason you never care to elaborate on.



That is why creationists are conspiracy theorists.



I also think its cute you have your clones answer and starring your question.



Edit: I tackled number 4 in my intro. Those 3 pieces of genetic data conclusively support the idea of a common ancestor of humans and other primates.



Edit: You are completely ignorant of genetics.



Why are those examples not just because of similarities? Simple. They are junk.



In the case of the GULO pseudogene, it is garbage. Genetic debris accumulated through evolutionary history. It is not transcribed, it makes no protein, it serves no purpose.



Those ERVs? Garbage. They are not transcribed, if they were your cells would be spewing out viral particles. They are dead. Why are the same exact dead viruses in our cells at the same location as chimpanzees? And they are quite clearly retroviruses, just gag, pol and env.



How do we know these are really junk? Because experiments have been done. We know what those sequences are and what they do, but they aren't doing that. They really are debris.



Now for the kicker, you claim the fused chromosome is an example of similar design? Then why not just have the same number of chromosomes? What is the point of putting telomeres in the middle of a chromosome where they cannot function?



Did the designer make our genome just look like we share a common ancestor with other apes to mess with us?



The design argument fails miserably if you have any understanding of the structure of the genome.



Edit: You are scientifically illiterate.



"This is irrelevant. How do you know they were created that way? When you create something it never gets better it gets worse, problems arise.

You do not know if they do not function, there have been a lot of new discoveries lately that show a lot of what they though has no function actually has a function."



So, instead of actually arguing against evidence, you dismiss it? You cannot offer a parsimonious explanation so you ignore it.



Human 2 was the result of a fusion. Any sane individual must admit this. "Similarity" cannot explain this, because it is unique, and quite useless. If you don't think so, find a use for interior telomeres. You have failed to defend your position once again.



Oh, and your hilarious claim that K-Ar dating misdating something by several million fold? A lie that creationists love.



K-Ar dating is only reset on the complete melting of rock. To illustrate how important this is, a group of geologists collected samples from the Mt. St. Helens eruption and dated them to several hundred million years.



They also included electron micrographs showing that there sample was riddled with xenoliths, chunks of rock that never melted in the lava.



They were warning geologists to remember to check for these. Account for them and the dating is accurate.



This is why the scientific community is so hostile to creationists. They lie constantly.



Also name one, just one, testable prediction put forth by intelligent design.



Here are your predictions, lets see if they are at all valid:

1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.



1. Define information. Since the genome is just ATCG in various patterns mutations can account for reshuffling that can create new "information," to use your vague term.

2. ID is disproven. Nothing appears completely out of the blue. There are pre-Cambrian fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. There are microfossils before the first stromatolites. Then there is that distinct and telling pattern throughout the geologic comlumn.

3. That would be compelling, to find a gene completely out of the blue in an unrelated organism with no homologs in any closely related organism. That hasn't happened (barring some horizontal gene transfer in some prokaryotes).

4. ID is disproven. Ignoring your completely wrong use of the term genetic code, most of the mammalian genome IS junk.



How do we know this? An experiment was done of course, something creationists once again have failed to do. Two regions of the mouse genome, several million bases making up more than 2% of the total genome, were deleted. The result? Happy, healthy mice.



The genome is riddled with debris. You cannot escape this fact.



So, intelligent design has been disproven. Will you abandon it? I doubt it.



You also have yet to provide a parsimonious explanation for the fused human 2. Design makes no sense, unless deception was the goal.



And you completely missed the point about the K-Ar. It works, if you don't include older rocks in the sample you test.



When an eruption occurs, older chunks of rock get in the lava. Since the entire reason K-Ar works is that argon will bubble out of liquid rock, anything that doesn't melt will give its actual age, much older than the lava flow.



These chunks of rock are easy to detect, if you bother to look. The entire point of that paper was a reminder to geologists to check their samples before they data them.



Here is the citation for the paper creationists always misinterpret.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30059991

Go to a library and actually read it. Given the conclusions of the paper, claiming they showed K-Ar doesn't work is nothing short of lying.



Another question, why are several million scientists in every country all in some vast conspiracy when they have nothing to gain?



Edit: Now you are just being plain incompetent. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor. Not only that there is no new "information" between us. There are no uniquely human genes. You fallacious argument fails on its own.



You are quite right, disproving creationism doesn't do anything but disprove creationism. However, you think you can support intelligent design by attacking evolution. To illustrate this, I demanded testable predictions (which are required to be science) made by your model.



And your model was disproven. A million success and a theory will never be proven, but all it takes is one wrong prediction to destroy it.



You claimed the genome was designed with no "junk" DNA, but it is actually riddled with it. True, not all of what was once called junk is really debris, but a large amount of it is. This invalidates a prediction made by ID, which disproves your model. If you have any intellectual integrity, you would abandon it or modify it to fit the data.



If creationists were sincere, they would have done this experiment themselves, and when no viable mice were created, then their theory would have support. But they didn't. They never do. They simple do not do any science.



You also clearly have no idea what I am saying half the time. For example, similar genes are found in species that are related. You do not mysteriously find, say an avian cytochrome c gene in a bat. Find any, and I do mean any, gene so out of place in a higher animal and common descent would be shattered. From a design standpoint, why not? Both fly, surely they could have similar genes? But they don't.



In summary, you are an idiot who wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on the ***.



Animals change and adapt to the en

Answer 2

[1] this is either cosmology (the origin of the universe) or abiogenesis (the origin of life) - not evolution. Evolution only describes how life changes with time.



[2] the best example for this is observed evolution - both "microevolutionary" changes (such as antibiotic resistant bacteria) and observed speciation (reproductive isolation of two sub-populations of one species).



[3] "kind" is not a biological term.



[4] the anatomical similarity of men to other apes (man is an ape, BTW - we are classified in the Hominidae family, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangoutans); genetic evidence (human chromosome 2 as a fusion of two chromosomes in ancestors, which did not happen in the chimpanzee lineage); and fossil evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

(pay particular attention to the second sentence in that website: "As there are thousands of fossils, this overview is not meant to be complete, but does show some of the most important finds")



[5] where is your evidence that (for example) the speed of light, or the weak nuclear force have changed in magnitude over time?

If they had done so, then this itself would have left evidence (changing amounts of light arriving from distant stars as the speed of light slowed or sped-up; a gradient of changing decay-rate evidence by radioisotope analysis of rocks; etc.) No such evidence is forthcoming.



[6] again, this has nothing (directly) to do with evolution - but the oldest rocks on earth (felsic rocks from Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa, etc.) can be dated to be 2.5 and 3.8. Billion years old.

The oldest known rock on earth has been dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.

Performing similar analysis on meteorites, thought to have formed at the same time as the early earth, reveal that the oldest of them is 4.567 billion years old (making this the current upper-limit on the age of the earth).

Answer 3

At first glance, to the undiscerning mind, evolution seems very plausible! Unfortunately, when one only hears one side of the story, of course it will seem true. However, when the "theory" is held under serious scrutiny, it does not stand up at all. I will simply state that the fact that it is mathematically proven immpossible that the first simplist living organism could have ever been formed by chance. So the whole "theory" has its head chopped off before it even begins. Not saying that all the other elements of the idea have not been shown to be ridiculous also, but I will leave it at that!

By the way, I wonder why evolutionists are so utterly terrified to have the creation model of origins taught side by side with their "theory", so that students can decide for themselves which best fits the evidence we can observe? So that students can be taught how to think, not what to think? They claim that the creation argument is without any evidence or footing. So why don't they want the creation model taught? It would give them the grand opportunity to "demolish" it as ridiculous once and for all, if it is so unscientific and stupid as they say! And silence us creationist for good! Hmmm. Maybe they are scared? Maybe they have something to hide? Maybe, just maybe, their little hypothesis would be the one to be shown to be false? I personally would have no problem with the evolution model being taught, if the creation model were taught side by side with it with no bias among the teachers to either side. I would love it! The creationists are not afraid of this fight AT ALL!! LOL! The evolutionists are! Come on guys! Lets do this thing! All we want is the fair chance to fight ya! Why are ya so scared? Why do ya have to hide behind the lawyers and judges?? You remind me of a paper champion boxer who merely holds the title by default, and ducks and dodges a fight!!! Don't be a chicken!

Anyway, I think I have made a point. Take care and GOD bless!! (Yes, there is a GOD too!)

Answer 4

O' boy let us take a close look at Soul Prophet's "evidence" in favor of evolution. This is what evolutionist say when truth nor science is on their side.



"Okay.. thank you for reminding me why I make it a habit not to argue with ignorant people."



Please tell me what I' am ignorant of. There are two types of evolutionist, their are ignorant evolutionists and intellectual evolutionists. You are number one. They are not dumb, but many, they have just been poorly educated.



"The question I linked you to presents a ton of evidence that any rational person would have a hard time dismissing. Unfortunately for you, you appear rather averse to rationality."



Your "tons of evidence" is by far the easiest "evidence" to refute, I can do it in 5 minutes, at least give me a challenge. I must say, your defense for evolution is one of the weakest by far.

Please tell me how apes turned into humans? Let us talk about macroevolution, which must be true for evolution to be true. Please give me an example of macroevolution. I will be waiting.



"The fact is, all the evidence is on the side of evolution."

This is true in your own mind =). Let's get back to reality. Why don't evolutionist debate creationist? They always resort to the government to sensor the science curriculum. Please present one scientific fact that is on the side of evolution. Their is a difference between imagination and fact.



"This, I suppose, is why you feel the need to resort to attacking my position and dismissing all my evidence off-hand as if you know something that the greatest minds in science don't (which, given your horrible debating skills, I find quite unlikely)."



I' am not attack your position, I' am attacking evolution and it does not pass as being science. Dismiss what evidence? You have not presented any. I do not care who believes in evolution, I do not listen to creationist or evolutionist just the data itself. If the data does not agree with the theory I throw away the theory not the data.

My friend has a masters in microbiology and bachelors in chemistry, he does not believe in evolution as taught in public schools. I asked him if a mouse can turn into a bat with sonar, he agreed that is like saying a fish can turn into a backhoe. There might be a better chance of a fish turning into a backhoe, than a mouse into a bat =).



"So, feel free to spread your disinformation and turn a blind eye to any evidence that challenges your archaic, whithered husk of a belief system. I can do nothing more to help you."



One of my objectives is to make the general public aware, evolution is not consistent with any scientific/physical evidence. So far their is zero evidence that challenges my belief. Feel free to present any. You can help yourself by providing at least some scientific evidence in favor of evolution that has not been disapproved already.



And for anyone who wants to get the FACTS on this debate..



I highly recommend creationist read his facts on his debate, because they are facts on this debate not on science. It will show you the level of scientific education people are getting theses days.



Can we talk about evolution please?

Answer 5

Let's us have a good laugh.

"Define information. Since the genome is just ATCG in various patterns mutations can account for reshuffling that can create new "information," to use your vague term."



Information is any form of text or image that that produces specific effects, with a purpose. Hence, genetic information.



"ID is disproven. Nothing appears completely out of the blue. There are pre-Cambrian fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion. There are microfossils before the first stromatolites. Then there is that distinct and telling pattern throughout the geologic comlumn."



"Nothing appears completely out of the blue."



I guess evolution must be true because nothing appears completely out of the blue. =)

We did not evolve from a lower life form so we were created fully human. Guess what? We did appear out of the blue.

According to evolution everything appeared out of the blue also, but as a single cell.



"Then there is that distinct and telling pattern throughout the geologic comlumn."



A true evolutionist would not agree with you. Why is that relevant anyway?



"That would be compelling, to find a gene completely out of the blue in an unrelated organism with no homologs in any closely related organism. That hasn't happened (barring some horizontal gene transfer in some prokaryotes)."



Why is this compelling? And compelling evidence for what?

"to find a gene completely out of the blue in an unrelated organism "



That's great. So what?



"ID is disproven. Ignoring your completely wrong use of the term genetic code, most of the mammalian genome IS junk."



Proving evolution false does not prove creation true, proving creation false, does not prove evolution true, which is exactly what your trying to do.



"most of the mammalian genome IS junk."



So, what? What does that tell you?



"junk DNA is a provisional label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for WHICH NO FUNCTION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. " --Wikipedia.



"About 95% of the human genome has once been designated as "junk", "---Wikipedia.



"How do we know this? An experiment was done of course, something creationists once again have failed to do. Two regions of the mouse genome, several million bases making up more than 2% of the total genome, were deleted. The result? Happy, healthy mice."



How do creationist fail to do experiments?



"Two regions of the mouse genome, several million bases making up more than 2% of the total genome, were deleted. The result? Happy, healthy mice."



Good for the mice. So what is your point?



"The genome is riddled with debris. You cannot escape this fact."



Yes, what does that fact have to do with the evolution of an ape into a human?



"So, intelligent design has been disproven. Will you abandon it? I doubt it."

I will not abandon it until it has been disapproved with cold hard scientific facts. Either evolution has all the facts or creation, they cannot both be right. Nevertheless, I do not reject everything evolutionist say.



"You also have yet to provide a parsimonious explanation for the fused human 2. Design makes no sense, unless deception was the goal."



How do you know that was designed that way? From a evolutionary stand point it would be confusing.



"Design makes no sense"

Every design has a designer, does it not? How does design not make sense? All functioning systems are result of a super intelligent designer like a vision system, nervous system, digestive system, respiratory system, your sense of smell and taste, and hearing. The heart cannot survive without the brain, the brain cannot survive without blood, you cannot naturally survive without your heart,brain,kidneys,stomach,liver,bladder,lungs,blood cells, skin, veins, bones, tendons, immune system, just to name a few, and they all must be present at the same time for you to live.

Can you create a functioning vision system, let alone a human body out of dirt? Since you have intelligence and cannot do this, how does it happen naturally?

One quick point. A cell has biochemical machines inside, in order for the cell to function, the biochemical machines must appear out of the blue. =)



The question to Wise Duck was, what he knew about argon dating, let us take a closer look at his defense, if he has any. To my knowledge he has not answered the question.



"And you completely missed the point about the K-Ar. It works, if you don't include older rocks in the sample you test."



Here is the citation for the paper creationists always misinterpret.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/30059991

Go to a library and actually read it. Given the conclusions of the paper, claiming they showed K-Ar doesn't work is nothing short of lying."



That paper was written in the 1970s. I did not misinterpret that paper because I never read it before you gave me the link.



"Another question, why are several million scientists in every country all in some vast conspiracy when they have nothing to gain?"



You already asked this question and I answered it. All the people I know that have much more knowledge in science than I do, do not believe in evolution. As I wrote before, my friend that I work with all the time, whom I will be going on a trip to the Appalachian trail tomorrow, has a master's degree in microbiology and a bachelors in chemistry (he said getting a master's in microbiology was easy...) he was also a Physicians assistant for 6 to 7 years, also he has a masters in bio-mechanical engineering. I asked him can a mouse turn into a bat, he agreed that is like saying a fish can turn into a backhoe. I Highly recommend you meet a scientist that professes to believe in evolution publicly, then ask him/her behind closed doors.



What we should be discussing is how random changes to DNA can transform a chimp into a human.



This is a good read.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i7e.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10n.htm



Here is more of Wise Duck's "evidence" for evolution. So far he is not discussing how random changes to DNA can transform a chimp into a human.



"Now you are just being plain incompetent. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor. Not only that there is no new "information" between us. There are no uniquely human genes. You fallacious argument fails on its own."



This one is most interesting.

"And your model was disproven. A million success and a theory will never be proven, but all it takes is one wrong prediction to destroy it."



Are you saying the theory of evolution never had a failed prediction?

This should be quite interesting. What predictions has ID failed?



"And I am a scientist who publicly supports evolution. I work with others at a major research institute"



Wow, and you cannot give me any evidence in favor of evolution? This is great. This just keeps getting better.



I have to delete some quotes, their are only a few here, you can read the rest on Wise Duck's post.



This discussion with Wise Duck has been very interesting. One of the main questions I wanted answered is how and why does a mouse turn into a bat, or ape into a human, or a dinosaur into a bird, or any kind into a different kind? That is all. I' am definitely going to print this out =). If a species cannot change into a totally different species that did not previously exist, than how can you say we evolved? Can a ape turn into human? No it cannot, that is one of the reasons when evolutionist talk about "evidence" for common descent it is irrelevant. Evolutionist try to curve away from this problem, "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind:" ----The Bible

(If that is false then evolution may be plausible. Is it?)



Wise Duck's argument is a great example. I think he knows a fish cannot grow lungs and eventually grow a pair of legs and walk on land, no matter how much time is given to do so, he is a scientist I should not have to tell him that. What I marvel at is why would someone try to present "evidence" of a common descendant, knowing that all living things reproduce after their kind? In reality no matter how much "evidence" there is for common descent, it would be irrelevant, because a kind does not reproduce another kind or transform,change, whatever you want to call it, into a totally different kind. I' am just as interested in common descent as Wise Duck is, but his version is a little different than mine. Wise Duck's answer to my main question, will tell me everything I need to know. I must say Wise Duck has science in his argument, that is why he cannot support evolution, because science is against evolution.



"Maybe they are scared?" Evolutionist, scared, please...=). This reminds me of an article I read about a creation museum. Evolutionist were going crazy, because just ONE creation museum was up and running, and they also claimed that the museum had a lot of misinformation.



"I personally would have no problem with the evolution model being taught"

I totally agree! That is the problem, not enough evolution is taught.



"Animals change and adapt to their environment."

I agree 100%.



Evolution not only has zero scientific evidence in favor of it, but it simply cannot happen in the first place, that is because science is against evolution.

Answer 6

Here is some more of Wise Duck's "evidence" in favor of evolution.



"So, instead of actually arguing against evidence, you dismiss it? You cannot offer a parsimonious explanation so you ignore it."



What evidence did I dismiss? You said this.



"Now for the kicker, you claim the fused chromosome is an example of similar design? Then why not just have the same number of chromosomes? What is the point of putting telomeres in the middle of a chromosome where they cannot function?"



I said this.

This is irrelevant. How do you know they were created that way? When you create something it never gets better it gets worse, problems arise.

You do not know if they do not function, there have been a lot of new discoveries lately that show a lot of what was thought to have no function actually had a function.



Did I not answer your question?



Human 2 was the result of a fusion. Any sane individual must admit this. "Similarity" cannot explain this, because it is unique, and quite useless. If you don't think so, find a use for interior telomeres. You have failed to defend your position once again.



Very good. So what? How do you know it is useless? And if not why is that relevant?



"find a use for interior telomeres" They stabilize a cell. If a telomere does not function the chromosomes can be rearranged, which will distort genetic information. It does not make anything better.



"Oh, and your hilarious claim that K-Ar dating misdating something by several million fold? A lie that creationists love."



Please show me were I' am wrong. It was reported by evolutionist.

How do you know it is a lie? I guess you answer would be, because creationist love it?



"K-Ar dating is only reset on the complete melting of rock."



What?



"To illustrate how important this is, a group of geologists collected samples from the Mt. St. Helens eruption and dated them to several hundred million years."



Ok? That's great.





"They also included electron micrographs showing that there sample was riddled with xenoliths, chunks of rock that never melted in the lava."



What?



"They were warning geologists to remember to check for these. Account for them and the dating is accurate."



What? It puzzles me, that even evolutionist do not agree that argon dating is accurate, yet you say it is. Before I go any further, please explain to me what you know about how argon dating works. I would love to hear it.



Also here is something I want you to read.



http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i12e.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i8f.htm

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v4i10f.htm



This brings you to the Topic Index page.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/topics.htm



"This is why the scientific community is so hostile to creationists. They lie constantly."



Those 6 statements evolutionist put forth as the definition of evolution stated in the question must be true for evolution to be real. Are they true? That is why creationist are a threat to evolutionist. Evolutionist always has to hide behind the government. Majority is irrelevant.



"the scientific community is so hostile to creationists."



That is true, I agree, that is because evolutionist have no truth nor evidence on their side, so they have to be hostile toward creationists to make them look bad.

Your statement has nothing to do with the original question.



"Also name one, just one, testable prediction put forth by intelligent design."



Evolution cannot happen, it never happened, it has never been observed to happen nor can we make it happen again. =)

There is something you must not understand, predictions is not evidence for or against evolution, or creation. Why are you hanging on to predictions? Do evolutionary predictions, predict a chimp can turn into a human, when that is known to be impossible, or a mouse into a bat? Yes is does. What is wrong the prediction or data?

You are using evolutionary prediction as evidence of evolution, even though it is not.

Please present evidence of a chimp turning into a human.

Also a lot of evolutionary prediction have to do with microevolution.

Example, evolution predicted, diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics. Is that true?



I looked up ID Predictions here are a few, even though predictions are irrelevant.



1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.

2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.



You cannot say their is "junk" DNA because a lot of so-called "junk" DNA has been discovered not to be "junk" DNA. You do not know what more discoveries will take place in the future. "Junk" DNA may not be "junk" DNA tomorrow.



For evolutionist similarities is evidence for common descent. Yet human and chimps are different. In other words similarities and differences is what evolutionist put forth for common descent. =)



I believe some living organisms can have a common descent, but only within a species. I' am interested in learning about common descent also.



So far you have not supported evolution according to their definition.



Here is a great essay for you to read. It is mainly about junk DNA.



http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i5e.htm

Answer 7

The best answer I heard from a wise university christian evolution instructor is that in Genesis 1:1 (somewhere around there) it says that the earth was without form or void. It does not say for how long. It could of been billions of years? Also it does not state exactly whet Lucifer was cast down for earth to be his domain. My guess he was jealous of God for being able to create man and woman, so he attempted to use DNA and ended up with dinosaurs. Then came the tower of Babel. You can use cobalt testing however it just takes a sample from around the bones. It is all based on Faith.....

Answer 8

Finally Wise Duck is here to put up evidence in favor of evolution as stated in the question, let us take a look and see what he wrote. I hope he keeps posting I' am learning a lot. As always I will write as time permits, this is going to be interesting. Let the excuses begin.



"Why is human chromosome 2 clearly the fusion of two other chromosomes?"



Because we are designed similar to each other.



"Why do humans and all higher apes share the same deletions in their l-gulonolactone oxidase gene (vitamin C sythase)?"



Hint..we both live in the same environment, do we not? Are we not similar? Nature is your god, is it not? Why are you asking me questions that you should be asking nature =).



Just so the audience knows, Wise Duck is using ERV's as "evidence" for common descent.



"Why do humans and chimpanzees share 14 retrovirus insertion events, given that the viruses insert randomly?"



Quick point. Since we are similar to chimps, what conclusion do you draw from that and why?



"Propose any model that explains these observations. Then do an experiment to test your model."



You seem to be saying we came from apes and the evolutionary model agrees with that. Similarities is not evidence for common descent. Since your good at comparing and you believe we came from apes please explain what natural process transforms an ape to a human. How and why does an ape turn into a human? This question should be extremely easy for you to answer, since we are similar =).

Why do you come to the conclusion similarities is evidence of common descent?



"This is how science works. This is what evolution does. It offers a model that explains all available evidence and forms a foundation for future work."



Intelligent Design works the same way.



You finally have some science in your argument, why are you still talking about evolutionary predictions? Your are trying to prove we came from chimps, by showing our similarities with a chimp. How is that evidence humans evolved from a lower life form? Does a animal evolve from a lower life form? Do mice turn into bats? Do chimps turn into humans? Genomic data can be used as evidence of common designer just as well. Similarities is not evidence for or against evolution. I wonder why evolutionist are obsessed with presenting similarities of creatures as proof of common descent?

If ERV's were real evidence of common descent I would expect Coyne to have mentioned it in his book "Why evolution is true".

If there was a know natural process in which a chimp transforms into a human, then similarities would be strong evidence of common descent. They don't. It is fact we are similar to chimps. It is not fact a chimp can turn into us.





"No other theory can do the same. Which is why there are no opposing models being discussed in the scientific literature. Since it works and has no competition, why would evolution not be taught in schools?"



The evolution theory fails to do anything. There will be zero opposing models being discussed until the general public becomes aware their old model does not fit the data, that is when evolutionist will have to change their model.

Evolution should be taught in schools. Including the reasons why it is scientifically absurd. That is the problem with evolution in school, they only give you one side of the story. When all you learn all about evolution, they know you will soundly reject it. That is why they don't.



Santa clause is a good example, if you tell a 5 year old santa clause comes at night and puts presents under the tree in one night in all households, the 5 year old will believe you because he/she does not have the knowledge to understand that a man in a sleigh with flying reindeer is a myth and cannot deliver all the presents in the world in one night.



"If you really want to challenge evolution, you need to stop sitting around and get data. Creationists simply do not try, while real scientists are compiling mountains of genomic data that all support common descent."



In order for the evolutionary model to be correct, a lower life form must be able to evolve into a higher life form, and we must be similar. ERV's only shows we are similar it does not prove a chimp can turn into a human. Since a chimps cannot turn into a human, but we still have the same ERV's does not validate chimps being able to turn into humans. The evidence that is against evolution of a chimp into human is overwhelming. Your evolutionary model is wrong because your not examining other data that goes against the evolution of a chimp, you are just looking at ERV's, but not the other evidence that disagrees with the evolutionary model. Also a lot of the so-called "junk" DNA has been found not to be junk at all. Can you please quote my questions and answer them it would be appreciated.

I have only done the most basic research of ERV's since it is just another way of evolutionist repeating themselves, therefore, I do not spend much time studying how they impact the evolution. When I see the big-shot evolutionist using it as a valid argument, then I will do further research.



"1: Not evolution, look up abiogenesis."



Abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution.



"2: Given the full range of mutations possible, the observed creation of new genes, ect, combined with the unmistakable pattern across taxa, this is fully supported by evidence."



This simply is not true. Why do you keep repeating yourself?



"3: This isn't what is taught. No respectable biologist would forget the importance of genetic drift in speciation. Again, all genomic data points to this conclusion, which is independently confirmed by several other sources of data, most notably the fossil record."





Of course it is what is being taught. That's why people oppose it.

That 6 statements was used in court by evolutionist as the definition of evolution. That is exactly what is being taught. I cannot wait till I get to college =).

Still more example of microevolutions. In what way, shape or form does the fossil record support evolution? =)



"5: Ignoring absolute dating, why are dinosaurs never found with any modern animal ever? Why are there several thousand complete ecosystems that are never found intermingled?"



Radiometric dating does not give absolute dates, evolutionist only accept the date when the dates fit their prejudice. You should check out the Apollo moon rock data. I remember reading about a skull evolutionist found, the rock it was found in was dated to about 235 millions years, but I' am not sure if that was the exact age, I' am sure it was in the 200 million range. So guess what they did?

Why do we never find pandas in Antarctica? It is because ecosystems don't intermingle.



"6: Uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and argon-argon dating are three of more than a dozen radiometric dating series that all agree on the age of the Earth being 4,500,000,000."





Potassium argon dating method has dating rocks that were known to be 20 years old, at 3.5 million years old. Dates shown by radioactive methods range from thousands to billions of years. They have been shown to be wrong in repeated laboratory experiments.

The radiometric dating systems only agree when discrepant dates are thrown out. Please see the Apollo 11 moon rock data.





" Helioseismology provides a similar date for the sun's age."



What? Helioseismology supports a young sun. Where are you getting your information from? The Sun definitely does not show the characteristics of a multi-billions year old star.



" How do you account for this massive amount of error in several different disciplines?



This is irrelevant.



" You disagree with the findings of several million scientists over the last several centuries, so you claim we are all lying to everyone about everything....for some vague reason you never care to elaborate on."



It is not the findings I disagree with, its the conclusion evolutionist come to. They have a methodological problem.



"That is why creationists are conspiracy theorists."



If that is your reason, your in a big heap of trouble. When evolutionist have a scientifically illiterate audience is is easy to deceive them. As I said, do not listen to me, just look at the facts themselves. Study how dating methods work, then you may figure out why they don't work. Evolution have some truth to what they say, that is why you have to know your stuff to be able to separate truth from myth in their argument. One sentence they may something that is true, then the next sentence will be totally false, and visa-versa.



"I also think its cute you have your clones answer and starring your question."



Did you not read what I wrote in the question?



"Now for the kicker, you claim the fused chromosome is an example of similar design? Then why not just have the same number of chromosomes? What is the point of putting telomeres in the middle of a chromosome where they cannot function?"



This is irrelevant. How do you know they were created that way? When you create something it never gets better it gets worse, problems arise.

You do not know if they do not function, there have been a lot of new discoveries lately that show a lot of what they though has no function actually has a function.



"Did the designer make our genome just look like we share a common ancestor with other apes to mess with us?"



Did God not create all living creatures out of dirt? Since we were created from the dirt, we will go back to dirt, it is not a surprise we are very similar.



One quick question acutally a few. Why can we comprehend the universe?

Why is their gravity? What would happen if gravity did not exist?

Answer 9

I guess that is a yes. Let us take a closer at "evidence" in favor of evolution that has been disapproved years ago, Soul Prophet has. I will lay it out as time permits.



"The strongest evidence for evolution, of course, is in the fossil record."



Then evolutionist would not lose a debate. The fossil record proves nothing, its just a collection of extinct species. Since a species cannot turn into a totally new species that did not previously exist how do you come to the conclusion that the fossil record supports evolution?

Similarities is all evolutionist got. Similarities is evidence of similarities, not common descent. When fossils look similar what conclusion would you come to? Similarities can be used as evidence for a common designer. It is evidence neither for or against evolution. Here is a little from another response. Lets say you found, a fossil that is similar to a horse, but it is smaller and has some of the features of a modern horse, then you found more fossil that all resemble each other, would you consider that a species that lived in the pass, that eventually became a horse? That diagram of the evolution of a horse has been disapproved more than 20 years ago. As I see it if you can conjure it in your mind that evolution is possible then I guess for some people that is enough evidence. =)





"The most obvious evidence is the fact that the older you go back in the fossil record, the simpler the organisms you find."



Is this true? I think not. There is not evidence of gradual development even if their was, that would mean nothing. Lets take a look at what a intellectual evolutionist says.

This is what Richard Dawkins said this about the fossil record, " And we find many of them already in the advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were planted there, without an evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationist." Why do you not believe him? You are not even stating up to date evolutionist statements. We are in the 21th century, have you noticed?



"The next evidence is so-called "transitional forms" - the missing links between two different types of organisms. Obviously, there's not enough space to list them all, but two of the most striking are:"



Are you on planet earth? Your two example have been disapproved years ago, fossils prove nothing and true evolutionists know that.

There must be billions of transitional forms I' am not aware of.



"The next best evidence is vestigial organs

I guess that answer that question. things that evolved for a specific reason, but no longer serve any purpose, or now serve an entirely different purpose. Among these are wings on flightless birds, tailbones (and occasionally ACTUAL tails) in humans, pelvic and limb bones found in some snakes (though they obviously do not walk or have limbs), and cave-dwelling salamanders with eyes, even though they are completely blind."



I guess that answers that question. Are you alright? This is irrelevant to evolution. How do you know we use to have tails, or flightless birds use to be able to fly? Why do you come to the conclusion they had a previous use?



This is what Soul Prophet said.

"Allow me to sum up your basic argument for anyone who doesn't feel like reading everything: "Your theory is wrong. Screw the 'evidence' you have, I don't like it. Besides, i'm smarter than the plethora of scientists who spent the majority of their lives studying these things and objectively analyzing the facts. Just because scientific agreement is nearly unanimous doesn't mean it's true. Just because everything we've found points directly to that conclusion doesn't mean it's true.""



So far he has not presented any evidence in favor of evolution nor has he debunked anything I said. All he can is is I' am wrong. He is what you call a amateur evolutionist. Instead of saying I' am wrong, please correct me. Do you wants to go into the details? Notice he says he says he does not like the evidence, I guess I was right, if you can imagine it, you can believe it to be fact in your own mind. He still has not supported the question with scientific evidence. A scientific approach would be appreciated.



Interesting.



"Dismissing evidence without giving credible reason to do so does not help your case."



What evidence am I dismissing? Please be more specific.



"Your entire question/response. Absolutely nothing sourced, nothing concrete in your argument at all - just baseless attacking of my position and its established credibility."



How do you know this? Please show me were I' am wrong. It seems to you anything that opposes your imagination must be false. What you put fourth as "evidence" in favor of evolution, a true evolutionist would be embarrassed. As always science is against evolution. Lets talk science.



"this is either cosmology (the origin of the universe) or abiogenesis (the origin of life) - not evolution. Evolution only describes how life changes with time."



Abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution, evolutionist always try to separate it from the theory of evolution. You failed to answer this question.



" the best example for this is observed evolution - both "microevolutionary" changes (such as antibiotic resistant bacteria) and observed speciation (reproductive isolation of two sub-populations of one species)."



Microevolution cannot bring about present living things from simpler kinds, it can cause variation. You failed to answer the question.



""kind" is not a biological term."

This was used in court as a definition of evolution, as was put forth by evolutionists. You failed to answer this question.



"the anatomical similarity of men to other apes (man is an ape, BTW - we are classified in the Hominidae family, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangoutans); genetic evidence (human chromosome 2 as a fusion of two chromosomes in ancestors, which did not happen in the chimpanzee lineage); and fossil evidence:"



What evidence is their that supports this? I would love to hear it.

"(man is an ape, BTW - we are classified in the Hominidae family, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangoutans)"



Similarities does not prove same biological descent. An ape cannot turn into a human or a mouse into a bat. You failed to answer this question.



"where is your evidence that (for example) the speed of light, or the weak nuclear force have changed in magnitude over time?

If they had done so, then this itself would have left evidence (changing amounts of light arriving from distant stars as the speed of light slowed or sped-up; a gradient of changing decay-rate evidence by radioisotope analysis of rocks; etc.) No such evidence is forthcoming."



What? This is irrelevant to statement #5

How do you know the amount of each isotope there was to begin with?

How do you know how long the decay has been happening?

You failed to answer this question.



"again, this has nothing (directly) to do with evolution - but the oldest rocks on earth (felsic rocks from Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa, etc.) can be dated to be 2.5 and 3.8. Billion years old.

The oldest known rock on earth has been dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.

Performing similar analysis on meteorites, thought to have formed at the same time as the early earth, reveal that the oldest of them is 4.567 billion years old (making this the current upper-limit on the age of the earth)."



Age has nothing to do with evolution?

"again, this has nothing (directly) to do with evolution "

Which dating technique was used to get these dates?

Evolutionist are always accept new dates especially when they get dangerously close to 6000 years.

We did not evolve from a lower life form, so we have always been human, and you are saying we have been on this earth for billions of years. You failed to answer the question.

Answer 10

1st- i do not believe in evolution and have seen proof that cannot be challenged that this is an unscientific theory that's as likely to have happened as me being born on mars....

that said

the "proof" that evolution did occur is that u can group living organisms into groups that all seen to descend from the same ancestors and have similar build with some changes (person & chimpanzee)

Answer 11

Proving evolution false does not prove creation true, proving creation false (if possible) does not prove evolution true.



"Many of these things have nothing to do with evolution."



Those statements were used in court by evolutionist, as the definition of evolution. Nice try though.



"The formation of life from nonliving materials, for example, is abiogenesis - NOT evolution."



Abiogenesis is the foundation of evolution according to the definition of evolution.



"The theory of evolution simply deals with how a single original species became all the life that we see today - nothing more, nothing less."



Please enlighten me on how and why a lifeless cell comes to life and eventually becomes all life on the planet. Explain to me how an ape turns into a human.



"As for the rest, check this question I posted a while ago. It should present to you some pretty compelling evidence. If you've got any other questions, feel free to clarify."



I would love to hear evidence in favor of evolution.



"By the way - before you even ask, the reason i'm not answering your questions directly is because I have a feeling i'm not going to convince you no matter what evidence I present.."



I always listen to what evolutionist say, the more they talk to me the less I believe evolution.



"people tend to be unwilling to change their opinion regardless of the facts."



I' am extremely curious what facts you have to present, can you please present them.



"If this isn't the case, and you're GENUINELY interested, i'd be happy to provide you much more evidence."



Please do.



"the "proof" that evolution did occur is that u can group living organisms into groups that all seen to descend from the same ancestors and have similar build with some changes (person & chimpanzee)"



Intelligence is involved. Similarities prove nothing. Some changes is called microevolution, which has been observed, that is why I believe it, but it has nothing to do with the question.



Soul Prophet please read some of my responses. Then I will dig into your question you posted early.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20090623185839AAHjL3j



"The best answer I heard from a wise university christian evolution instructor is that in Genesis 1:1 (somewhere around there) it says that the earth was without form or void. It does not say for how long. It could of been billions of years?"



The Bible clearly says the earth was created in 6 literal days.



"Okay, clearly this is a lost cause. Your ignorance, I fear, is incurable."



Of what?



"I appreciate the fact that you're trying to appear intelligent (and maybe you are), but ignorance trumps intelligence every time."

Ignorant of scientific fact is one of evolutionist most powerful weapon.



"Let's do it this way - since you clearly aren't going to believe any of the evidence I present to you, please present to me evidence to support YOUR case."



The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. Every designer has a designer, does it not? This is a little of what I wrote to another question, even though the burden of proof is not on me. I recommend we stick to the topic of evolution.

We did not evolve from a lower life form, so we were created human. If your parents did not exist you will not exist. Do people appear for no reason? All creation is evidence of God. The universe is going toward it's own demise, it had a beginning, and chaos does not go toward order, someone has to put things in order. The humans race did not create itself. Nothing creates itself, someone has to create. Please give me an example of something creating itself from nothing.

All functioning systems like sense of smell, vision, digestive, respiratory and nervous system are all a result of a conscious super intelligent designer. It seems you do not believe in creation, because you believe evolution. But evolution is just an alternative let alone a false one, which does not invalidate creation.

I would love to hear what scientific evidence is their against creation, and scientific evidence in favor of the version of evolution you are talking about. All your claims are baseless. As the true saying goes, because things exist today does not mean they evolved, saying they evolved is like saying their are presents under the christmas tree so santa must have put them their. I do not listen to what creationist say nor evolutionist, I examine and analyze scientific data myself. Maybe one day you will become a geologist and understand how dating techniques work, and why they don't work.



When they data does not agree with the theory, I throw away the theory not the data, apparently evolutionist tend to do the opposite =). They also esteem philosophy higher than science.



"In other words, what evidence, exactly, do you have that causes you NOT to believe the plethora of facts I (and i'm sure other evolutionists) have given you?"



So far not one evolutionist has presented one scientific fact in support of evolution as taught in public schools and colleges.

What facts are you talking about?



"what evidence, exactly, do you have that causes you NOT to believe the plethora of facts"

Their are none, I wonder what convinced you, please tell me.



"why, exactly, do you ask these questions if you know your opinion cannot be changed?"



Since their is "overwhelming evidence for evolution" they should be very easy for you to answer. Just present the facts, and refute the opposition.

Science is against evolution.



"I honestly feel very sorry for you.. and please don't tell me that your mind could be changed, because if you read my question and haven't at least reconsidered your stance, you never will."

I read it for about 30 seconds and I see a lot of baseless statements.

I can tear it to pieces if you like. This will be interesting.



"There is plenty of evidence I omitted, but the evidence I have provided should be MORE than enough for anyone with an inkling of rationality."



According to evolution, there should be no such thing as rational though.

The "evidence" you presented is not scientific, just your own opinion based on your own imagination. You write more about creationism than evolution. Attacking creationism does not get you anywhere, please read the first sentence I wrote. You did not present any evidence against creation, you just criticize it.



Please read you own writing and highlight the evidence in favor of evolution, and evidence against creation, then re-write it on this page.



"Alright, I have a rather strong urge to do one of two things: 1.) Point out the innumerable contradictions, assumptions, misrepresentations, and flat out lies that you've posted while laughing hysterically at you,"



Please correct me when I' am wrong, I like to be correct.



" or 2.) Pity you for your closed-mindedness and resistence to fact."



I' am still waiting for you to present evidence.



"I choose #2. I will not attempt to reopen a closed mind.. it was your decision to close it, and therefore it is only you who can open it again."



I' am open minded. It is one thing to be open minded, then to close your mind on truth.



" I will tell you that the facts I have presented are based FIRMLY in science, all verifiable, all widely accepted in the scientific community (and basically any other community, except that of creationists), and all gathered through years of unbiased research."



I guess because scientist believe evolution, it must be true =).



"I can only hope, for your sake, that you some day learn to overcome your ignorance and see that which is plainly in front of you."

Please put the scientific evidence in front of me, that is in favor of the version of evolution you are talking about.



"It serves you no purpose to cling bitterly to an outdated theory.."

Which one evolution?



" there is much to be gained by seeing the truth and attempting to understand scientifically this grand universe we happen to be a part of."



True, I agree, we were made from dirt so we are a part of the earth.

I still cannot see the truth in evolution. Evolution is not science despite what evolutionist would have you to believe.



"I wish you the best of luck, and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have if you some day overcome your bias."



Please answer the question I already have, and a few more.

How and why does a plant turn into a animal naturally?

What allows macroevolution?

How and why does a kind transform into another kind naturally?

How did the human body create itself naturally?

How and why does a fish grow legs and start walking on land naturally?

How does coordinate behavior come into existence naturally?

How and why did a butterfly evolve?

How does a functioning system create itself?

Answer 12

NOTHIN!