request for creationits

>> Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks. I never said that majority opinion determines what the truth is. That is a strawman argument. However when 98% of experts are saying one thing, and have been saying that for 150 years, then there is probably really good evidence for the theory, and probably not that much evidence against it or else it wouldn't convince so many experts. For example, if 98% of computer experts believed that a certain operating system is too insecure to use, you would be wise to listen because they probably have some very good points. >> Many scientists deny man evolved from apes. Only about 2% of scientists are creationists. This may be "many" compared to 2 people, but is very very small compared to the total number of scientists. Thats like saying many people live in Vatican City when only a few hundred do. >> That false idea is rejected by genetics. I am going to ask you again. How does genetics refute evolution? >> However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. There are different kinds of evolution. There is evolution of new species, and then there is the evolution of new complex abilities within a species. Both of these involve evolution through natural selection and mutations. Again, I was not trying to demonstrate the evolution of new species. I was only trying to show that complex abilities can evolve. This shows that the creationist argument that "complexity refutes evolution" is refuted by counter-example. >> For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented. Actually scientists have compared this evolved bacteria to the original bacteria and identified the exact mutations that gave them that ability. This mutation was not in the original bacteria. Scientists actually got a sample of normal bacteria in a lab to evolve this ability by putting them with nylon and making that their major food source. They documented the mutations that happened and the affect of those mutations on its ability to digest nylon [1]. >> No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils. I listed these intermediates in the last round and you never directly addressed them. >> Even if the evolution guess of what the first life form was is right, that single cell with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, could never produce an offspring with bones. That is genetically impossible. We see simple sea creatures made of soft tissue before we see bony ones. It is possible that the ability to make bone came from genes that produced softer tissue that evolved to make harder tissue. You can't say it is genetically impossible without actually proving it to be impossible. Just because you can't think of a way it could have happened doesn't mean it didn't. >> It was originally but it became an embarrassment for evolution because they could not explain how life began. >>Years ago they taught that life started in some primordial ooze. That is what I was taught in high school. It was started by a Russian scientists, but I can't remember his name. If you are interested google "primordial ooze." Ok, give me a quote from an evolutionist a long time ago who claimed that Darwin's Theory of evolution involved abiogenesis. Darwin was the one who came up with evolution, find a quote from him. The primordial ooze idea was a hypothesis some scientists had that maybe an electrical reaction sparked a chemical reaction that created the first set of self-replicating groups of molecules based on a simple version of DNA. This is very different than the theory of evolution that claims that natural selection and mutations can evolve existing species into new ones with new adaptations. The theory of evolution can't explain the origin of life because it requires life for natural selection and mutations to start evolving even if it is true, just like the Theory of Gravity can't explain the origin of life because it simple doesn't have the mechanisms to create life. I want to talk about how retroviruses are evidence for evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited [2]. In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion [2]. Some retrovirus DNA is used by the body for non-coding purposes to sort of be there to help the coding DNA get turned into proteins. Originally they were used by the virus to code proteins to invade the body, but now they are being used by the body in a way that their sequence does not really matter like much non-coding DNA [2]. We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference [2]. Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence [2]. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.evolutionarymodel.com...