request for creationits

>> Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks. >> You didn't say it but you certainly implied it. I never said it and I never implied it. I brought that up as a rebuttal of your claim that many scientists deny evolution. In reality it is a very small proportion of the scientific community. >> Wonderful. However it they remained bacteria, there was no evolution. Do you really not understand that evolution preaches a change of species. Their basic doctrine is that all we see to day started with a single source. Here is the definition of what evolution is: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [1] Evolution or evolving does not require creating a new species. An existing species can evolve new traits. I was not using this example to prove macro-evolution of the evolution of new species. The biggest problem creationists have with evolution is how can something simple become complex? I presented nylon eating bacteria as an example of the evolution of a complex trait. >> All I am saying is that is what I was taught in high school and college. The primordal ooze is about abiogenesis That was not all you were saying, you were claiming that abiogenesis was part of the Theory of Evolution. But these are completely different ideas explaining completely different things, with completely different mechanisms. You presented no evidence any scientist claimed abiogenesis was taught as evolution. >>It is not what I think. It is what genetics allows Again, show me that genetics does not allow the evolution of bone. This is your example, present the evidence. >> You didn't provide any evidence they were intermediates. You just said they were with no supporting evidence. >> Then present the evidence instead of just saying there is some. It doesn't matter if 100% say it is true, they could all be wrong unless there is scientific evidence to support what they say. I will make it easy for you; present one thing the TOE preaches with the supporting evidence that can be verified. >> Again the statistics are irrelevant. Verifiable evidence is necessary. Give me 3 things that provide evidence for man evolving from apes. Make that one thing. Pleas don't say man is an ape. That is an arbitary opinion made by evolutionists. I will clarify on the list I already presented earlier. I was asked for a list of transitional but if more details are requested I will provide them. We have the Australopithecines which were basically ape and from the fossil 'Lucy' we see they very similar to the ape fossils below them but had a pelvis and lower body far more likely humans that made them bipedal just like humans [3]. Further up we see Homo Habilis with an average cranial capacity of 750 cc. Chimps have 350 cc, and humans have 1400 cc [4]. Further up we see Homo Erectus. Early homo erectus have 900 cc and later ones have 1100 cc [5]. In fact when you take all the fossil hominids and look at cranial capacity you find a clear trend upward [6]. When you actually look at the fossils they become more and more human and less and less ape-like. Why would we see this trend if evolution was false and a flood did it? Wouldn't we see these fossils scattered everywhere, many with the dinosaurs, and certainly not at the top of the fossil record (since they are only a few million years old) sorted from ape-like to human-like. If you don't believe me, here is a website with a list of these fossils right here [7]. We even have Neanderthal DNA and they are very genetically distinct from humans [8]. They have less brain area devoted to social skills and higher reasoning [9]. >> Still scientist can test DNA and without knowing the source, they can positively say it is from an ape or from a man. When they can't do that, you have made your case. Until they can all you hve is an unsupported opinion. First off we have Neanderthal DNA that is far outside the human genetic range so I guess I made my case. What I was trying to say with the retroviruses is that these retrovirus sequences were inserted by viruses. Humans and apes share 99% of these sequences. It is extremely improbable that these sequences were independently inserted by viruses into humans and chimps, and spread through the entire population, and have 99% in the exact same place. Also, if they were independently inserted in different species of ape and humans, then why do we share many of the mutations in these sequences with apes? Why do more similar apes share more of these sequences and the mutations in these sequences? This only makes sense if humans and apes inherited our DNA and these ERVs. This is strong evidence of evolution [10]. >>Unless the object that is attacked changes species, wich it doesn't, there has been no evolution. Give me an example what an A becomes a B. If you can't, and you can't, you have n case. >>Wonderful. Haved tehy caused a changne of species yet? >> Mutation do not change a species into a different species. They only alter a characteristic of the offspring. Since the bacteria remained bacteria, there has been no evolution. We have observed many speciation events. For example we found two strains of Drosophila paulistorum (type of mosquito) that evolved to the point that they could not reproduce with the original species. There are many more examples provided in my source [11]. Also there are ring species which are species that have moved around in a circle and forming different populations that are different very similar species. The end of the ring meets the beginning and are very different from the original even though each of the other groups are similar to the ones that are next to them. We have many ring species like a Salamander in California Ensatina eschscholtzii and Greenish Warblers in Asia [12]. We also have Darwin's finches that flew over from South America into the Galapagos Islands and evolved into 11 new species that have evolved beaks adapted to different diets like seeds, insects, and nuts [13]. >> It is amusing that they don't even know what the original was. They start with guess and have continued guessing for 100+ years and still don't know >> Wonderful. Tell me what the original life was and what it became after the retrovirus did its thing. We know that Great Danes and Chihuahuas come from a common ancestor and yet don't know what the exact common ancestor was? Was it a dog that descended from wolves? What was it like? Evolution has strong genetic and fossil evidence so we can know that life is related although we may not know what the original was exactly. [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] https://iho.asu.edu... [4] http://www.macroevolution.net... [5] http://www.talkorigins.org... [6] http://pandasthumb.org... [7] http://humanorigins.si.edu... [8] http://www.nature.com... [9] http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [10] http://www.evolutionarymodel.com... [11] http://www.talkorigins.org... [12] http://www.actionbioscience.org... [13] http://www.pbs.org...