cloudgoddess:
I'm curious about how people who reject evolution would explain the more specific observations in nature that seem to support an evolutionary model. For example:

1. Why are the DNA sequences between species like, say, the chimpanzee and the human, or the bird and the dinosaur, so similar, if those organisms are not related? Wouldn't you expect to see completely random and dissimilar DNA sequences between all species if they shared no genetic relationship?

2. Why are simpler life forms consistently found in lower rock layers than their theorized present-day evolutionary descendents? Shouldn't we find all life forms mixed in all rock layers, if new species did not arise over time?

3. Why do human fetuses grow a layer of fur during development, which sheds later on before birth? And why does this fur grow at the same point in development as Chimpanzee fetuses do? If there were no relationship between us, wouldn't we expect human fetuses to lack such a thing?

4. In the same vein, why do the fetuses of all members of the Chordata phylum all look so similar?

5. Why are there organisms like flesh-eating bacteria, and parasitic, eye-burrowing worms that hurt humans? If such harmful and disease-causing organisms did not arise out of evolutionary adaptation, then why would they be created?

I am genuinely curious about how one would explain these phenomena in a non-evolutionary framework.

ElCount:
if evolution were true how come after eons human beings, animals and plants as we know it have failed to evolve into something different. Since you believe in evolution its safe to assume you have a protruding tail or something out of the ordinary. Please don't be deceived

wirinet:


What do you mean after eons? Homo Sapiens have just recently arrived on the evolutionary tree some 200,000 years ago. 200,000 years is too short a time to evolve into a completely new specie. Why would a human need a tail? We do not live in trees or need it for stability while running. In fact a tail would be detrimental to our survival.

asalimpo:


"You cannot train any primate to speak any language because ... " - intelligence can make a way
. Any animal half or one third as smart as man would have demonstrable , even formidable works to show.

CoolUsername:


Error margin is reduced by using several rock samples for the dating.

UyiIredia:


You are being your usual foolish self. Of course you can't say why 2 and 3 aren't worthy of consideration. Maybe it's because you are too dumb to know what they mean. Seeing as you are asking what Fact 1 means when the meaning is clear to any sensible person, a class you don't belong in.

ElCount:
if evolution were true how come after eons human beings, animals and plants as we know it have failed to evolve into something different. Since you believe in evolution its safe to assume you have a protruding tail or something out of the ordinary. Please don't be deceived

Outofsync:
Seriously...... listen to yourself

ElCount:

Common sense alone tells you that evolution is false. Go back and study the evolution account it is highly incompatible with the fossil record besides extinction and evolution are two different things.

Now look at this 95% of animal fossils are aquatic invertebrates and even the vertebrates discovered were mainly fishes and aquatic creatures, of the terrestrial life forms a whooping 98%(approx) are plants so what you are telling me is that as complex and numerous as the animal life forms that exist today are they evolved from a meager 2%(approx). This hilarious! I don't know about you but I think there is more dignity in being created by a supreme being who is perfect and Almighty than having to think I evolved from some amoeba. Its all common sense

wirinet:


Common sense alone tells you evolution is false? So what does common sense tell you? That the whole expanse of the universe was created by a white bearded Jewish man, using Jewish words, pronouncing all living things into being, but deciding to create man from clay? Common sense indeed, maybe common sense of second millennium BC mesopotamia.

Who says evolution and extinction means the same thing? Since it is accepted that over 95% of all animals that have ever existed on the planet are extinct, how then do you expect to draw the evolutionary tree of life from the beginning without extinct animals dominating?


This your statement above actually verifies evolution. First 95% of fossils are aquatic animals because fossilization process favours aquatic or marine creatures. For animals to be fossilized, it has to be covered up with mud or clay immediately after death, else the soft tissues of the animal would quickly decompose, eaten by other predators or simply disintegrate. Land creatures stand very little chance of being fossilized. Secondly and most importantly, marine creatures were on earth for billions of years before ever venturing onto land. According to modern evolutionary theory life started on earth in the primordial oceans or lakes some 4 billion years ago, but life only ventured on land about 500 million years ago, so it is logical to expect far more marine fossils than terrestrial fossils.

You arguments is now about dignity? Now what is dignifying about being created solely to be an amusement object of a Jewish God (in shape of a white bearded Jewish man), sitting on a throne high up rewarding or punishing according to this whims and caprices. Is it not more dignifying to see yourself as part and parcel of an evolving universe?

ElCount:
if evolution were true how come after eons human beings, animals and plants as we know it have failed to evolve into something different. Since you believe in evolution its safe to assume you have a protruding tail or something out of the ordinary. Please don't be deceived

cloudgoddess:

No, what you have just expressed is your complete lack of education regarding what evolution actually involves. It isn't magic. No scientist is claiming that random animals will grow tails, or that plants will transform into fishes. This caricatured version of "evolution" is crap peddled amongst the religious to keep them justified in their conviction that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts the biblical account of creation and is thus a threat to their religious beliefs. This false view of "evolution" is based on collective ignorance and nothing more.

Real evolution, is the gradual process of change in the genetic material of organisms over time. This change is guided by the environment - traits that cause creatures an increased chance of survival in their particular environment and biological niche, are maintained in the gene pool and carried on to successive generations. Traits that decrease a creature's chance of survival & reproductive success, die out along with the organisms that possess them.

As the environment changes, which it constantly is, and events such as genetic bottlenecking and population isolation take place, the beneficial traits for a particular population of organisms changes, thus new genes are survived, and different ones die out. It is easy to see how over millions of years, this can result in all manner of different organisms, diverging from common ancestors yet possessing very different features due to the selection pressures they have faced over time.

ElCount:
this is the problem with you evolutionist what you people termed micro evolution is simply Variation among species it happens and its true but you guys have used nomenclature as a deceptive tool there because when someone accepts it you guys will then come in and "say consider this phenomenon over a billion years only then will a chicken come from a banana" Typical evolution logic
For example its scientific truth that over a period of time cockroaches may become immune to a pesticide but that doesn't mean it evolved. It wont reproduce a dog or an elephant simply because it does not possess the genetic information of a mammal in its DNA let alone a dog hence even if that cockroach were to exist for a billion years it will still produce a cockroach albeit with perhaps an added/lost adaptability trait but it will still be a cockroach that's how the Designer God made it.
Well in your last statement there is nothing easy to see there unless the common ancestor is still of thesame kind even the bible tells us that. Because an ancestor of a dog is still a dog be it a Chihuahua or a wolf, the ancestor of a dog was never a plant.
Evolution is a religion don't try to pass it off as science

asalimpo:
^^^
adaptation is now evolution!!!
huh!
cockroaches evolve against pesticide.
So, when stubborn pupils, become hardened to teachers caning , they've evolved ,i.e the dna has changed radically, a thick skin!!

cloudgoddess:


Again, of course the ancestor of a dog was never a plant. Species can't hop between lineages. If you actually understood evolution, you would not have made this comment. This image might be helpful in conceptualizing things for you.
.

asalimpo:
^^^
adaptation is now evolution!!!
huh!
cockroaches evolve against pesticide.
So, when stubborn pupils, become hardened to teachers caning , they've evolved ,i.e the dna has changed radically, a thick skin!!

cloudgoddess:

Why should it? This goes back to your butchered concept of evolution that is flat out wrong. An organism can not spontaneously adopt traits from nowhere - [size=13pt]ALL evolution[/size] depends on PRE-EXISTING genetic information, being altered gradually down a genetic lineage. There is no way for a roach to become an elephant for the exact reason you stated. Doing so would directly contradict evolution.

If you mean it will still be an insect, then again, why wouldn't it be?

vooks:

Similarity points to COMMON Designer not descent.
Did you know that horses have more genetic similarity to bats than cows? Genetic homily is a myth

First, you assume there are 'simple' animals. This is circular reasoning. You assume some animals are 'simple', then you assume the more complex evolved from the 'simple' form, and finally you sedimentation takes forever. You need to know that fossilization is the exception not the norm and countless of life forms are virtually unknown because they never fossilized. In short, grow a brain

Did you know that human and frog fetuses BOTH have digits(fingers,thumbs and toes)?
The embryo homology was debunked before your grand parents were conceived. A word is enough for the wise

Since when did adaptation equate evolution?
if you both,taught me when i was younger, i would'nt be a biznesman by now,just saying


Im insincerely curious as to whether you possess the capacity to learn

Richirich713:
In a couple of million or billion years, will chimpanzees be able to build cars and twin towers ?

cloudgoddess:

You have no idea what you're even talking about. If you won't bother to read my posts carefully then don't even respond, you're just making yourself look more ignorant.

sonOfLucifer:

The problem is you don't believe in a 'million' years.. Jesus is coming soon, isn't He?

UyiIredia:
@ clodgoddess: You can respond to the facts I posted. Lests see how well you can defend your beloved theory against them.

ElCount:
that's what they say when an animal adapts they tell you over a billion years only then will probably a whale now start walking on land. Its hilarious how this people reason. The transformation of a dinosaur for example into a bird was never observed and there's no evidence it did but this guys believe it and pass it off as science (which is very much against the scientific method by the way) rather than religion

asalimpo:

The billion years is a scam. they know no one will be here to verify data that old, they just use that illusive mark to push forward their poo theories . In a billion years, they'll say it will happen in yet anoda billion years. story story ...

Joshthefirst:
How does using several rock samples reduce an error caused by a fluxing magnetic field that affects all the rocks under its influence?

Richirich713:


The problem is, people actually think "modern" apes are building Bugatti's and twin towers.

cloudgoddess:
I'm curious about how people who reject evolution would explain the more specific observations in nature that seem to support an evolutionary model. For example:

1. Why are the DNA sequences between species like, say, the chimpanzee and the human, or the bird and the dinosaur, so similar, if those organisms are not related? Wouldn't you expect to see completely random and dissimilar DNA sequences between all species if they shared no genetic relationship?

2. Why are simpler life forms consistently found in lower rock layers than their theorized present-day evolutionary descendents? Shouldn't we find all life forms mixed in all rock layers, if new species did not arise over time?

3. Why do human fetuses grow a layer of fur during development, which sheds later on before birth? And why does this fur grow at the same point in development as Chimpanzee fetuses do? If there were no relationship between us, wouldn't we expect human fetuses to lack such a thing?

4. In the same vein, why do the fetuses of all members of the Chordata phylum all look so similar?

5. Why are there organisms like flesh-eating bacteria, and parasitic, eye-burrowing worms that hurt humans? If such harmful and disease-causing organisms did not arise out of evolutionary adaptation, then why would they be created?

I am genuinely curious about how one would explain these phenomena in a non-evolutionary framework.

asalimpo:

The billion years is a scam. they know no one will be here to verify data that old, they just use that illusive mark to push forward their poo theories . In a billion years, they'll say it will happen in yet anoda billion years. story story ...

ElCount:
the only reason why people believe in evolution is because there's only one alternative to it and that is God created the world, He owns it and He makes the rules. If there were any other alternative, evolution would hv been dropped long time ago. They tell you they have evidence thru embryology, vestigial organs, geologic column, carbon dating... All those things are all lies because they ve been proven wrong long time ago but they won't drop it because they don't want to believe the alternative which is God and most especially they hv problem with the rules He set, they want to continue enjoying the pleasures of the flesh and live the way they like