Theory of evolution

My opponent happens to have information to prove similarity in animals genes. However that is not sufficient to prove evolution as a theory. Firstly I would like to address your "humans and chimps have been proven to only have 1% difference" : As if trying to suggest that those who question human-chimp common ancestry are ignorant, PBS asserts that "a schoolchild can cite the figure perhaps most often called forth in support of [human/chimp common ancestry]--namely, that we share almost 99 percent of our DNA with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee." Such an argument raises two questions: (1) Is the 99% Human/Chimp DNA-similarity statistic accurate? While recent studies have confirmed that certain stretches of human and chimp DNA are on average about 1.23% different, this is merely an estimate with huge caveats. A recent news article in Science observed that the 1% figure "reflects only base substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the genomes."1 In other words, when the chimp genome has no similar stretch of human DNA, such DNA sequences are ignored by those touting the statistic that humans and chimps are only 1% genetically different. For this reason, the aforementioned Science news article was subtitled "The Myth of 1%," and printed the following language to describe the 1% statistic: "studies are showing that [humans and chimps] are not as similar as many tend to believe"; the 1% statistic is a "truism [that] should be retired"; the 1% statistic is "more a hindrance for understanding than a help"; "the 1% difference wasn't the whole story"; "Researchers are finding that on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, altered connections in gene networks, and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of 'humanness' versus 'chimpness.'" Indeed, due to the huge caveats in the 1% statistic, some scientists are suggesting that a better method of measuring human/chimp genetic differences might be counting individual gene copies. When this metric is employed, human and chimp DNA is over 5% different. But new findings in genetics show that gene-coding DNA might not even be the right place to seek differences between humans and chimps. But there is a deeper question: (2) If humans and chimps were truly only 1% different at the genetic level, why should that demonstrate common ancestry? As noted in Slide 9, similarities in key genetic sequences may be explained as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than mere common descent. We might reasonably ask the evolutionist why the 1% difference value is considered powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution, and at what point does the comparison cease to support Darwinian evolution? What about 2% different? 3%? 5%? 10%? Is there an objective metric for falsification here, or is PBS putting forth a fallacious argument for human / chimp common ancestry? Intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry, but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design. Just as intelligent agents 're-use' functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan. Reference Cited: 1. Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%," Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007). Second: The chances Of Evolution Occuring An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10^50, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring. And the chances of its occurence greatly exceed 1 in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. (50 zeros) "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence." To hear evolutionists tell it, all you need is time. Take a few billion years here to get galaxies up and running, a gross of millennia there to line up those pesky organic chemicals the right way for life, and an epoch or two to morph some ape-like creatures into humans. Evolution sounds incredibly mysterious that way, dressed up in decades and centuries and eons. But all those years really just obscure the deeper issue. While evolutionists toss years around like a football, they ignore a fundamental flaw in Darwin"s idea. What"s that? Even trillions of years wouldn't be enough time to produce the simplest cell. People gamble in hopes to beat the odds and win big. But the slot machine of evolution has no chance to get the jackpot of life arising from non-life. Not with All the Time in the World Secular science textbooks make the origin of life sound simple enough. Throw in some chemicals, zap them with electricity, and you've got organic stew. At some point long, long ago, one such chemical concoction hit on the magical formula to succeed. After that, natural selection and genetics took over and marched toward humanity. Given enough time, these books assure us, it was bound to happen. But that formula for life is like multiplying by zero. No matter how big the other numbers, you"ll still end up with zilch. In other words, throwing in as much time as you like would still get you nowhere. It"s sort of like this: Darwin"s idea " billions of years " 0 (chance of actually happening) = 0. When mathematicians crunch the numbers, they come to some pretty staggering conclusions. The chance of evolution actually happening is about as likely as a blindfolded person throwing a pebble into outer space and knocking down a satellite that then crashes onto a target on the back of a truck speeding down the highway. Even with billions of years, that"s not going to happen. (For those of you who like math, you can see some numbers here.) To be sure, Darwinists have tried to massage those impossible odds to work in their favor, but no amount of number obfuscation can get around the facts. Time is not their friend. 100 Percent Certain So, if evolution is impossible no matter the eons, what else is there? The answer to that is simple. Based on real observations from scientific studies, we have no reason to believe life started by itself. According to the laws of biology, life always comes from life. Beyond that, information science shows us that information (such as the DNA necessary for life to begin) requires an intelligent source. Finally, without starting from an evolutionary bias, the study of genetics helps us understand that the variety of animal kinds on the earth could never lead back to a single ancestor. Add all that up and you"re left with an inescapable conclusion: there must be a powerful and super-wise Creator. With such a Creator, you no longer need billions of years. He could create everything in much less time"say . . . six days. According to the Bible, this Creator"God"did exactly that. He gave us a clear record (the Bible) of how He created the world, how long it took Him, how humans fell into sin, and how God the Son (Jesus) came to earth to save us. And of that you can be 100 percent certain. After all, God doesn"t leave anything to chance"not in a billion years (if there had really been that much time, that is). And The holy Quran also has this view: "We have built the heaven with (the power of Our) hands, and We are expanding (it)" (The Holy Qur"an, Surat Al-Dhariyat, Chapter 51, Verse 47). In this verse, God Almighty, praise to Him, is telling us that He created heaven and He is expanding it. Modern cosmology discovered this fact of the expanding universe in the twentieth century. The quran has been around for more than 1400 years. while Darwin only 150 years.