If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Those small changes are simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist. The big changes have never been observed to happen. Ever hear about what happens when you push selective breeding too far? The critter loses it's genetic diversity, and is sickly or malformed. You can only push it so far, then you run into problems. Macro-evolution has never been observed, and current scientific thinking shows that it is probably impossible. There is no way that DNA can add new information, which is required for the creation of new species.

Lol really. When you say never been observed you fail to consider the entire fossil record, when you say never been observed you forget that you can litterally trace the genetic commanalities between species effectivly visualise when species diverged. When you say never been oberved you fail to consider that these things can be used to predict where you will find transitional fossils. So when you say never been observed you actually say I don't want to observe it. And when you say experts, you are actually saying people who do not publish anything. And this whole selective breeding is another joke. First of, when you claim there was only 1 male and female to start with, that argument puts forth a big problem for you, the same can be said for the flood story. And I'll ask the same to you that I asked of James. How do you propose that macro, micro evolution works? Is there 2 sets of DNA, 1 that changes 1 that doesn't. Or does DNA stop changing after a certain amount of cycles? That's the only way you can have micro changes, but not macro changes. Macro changes are just a whole lot of micro changes.

I could explain it, but you would require a rudimentary knowledge of biology and genetics.to understand. Here is what a world famous chemist has to say about evolution. And yes. He's been published. Many times.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

Yes this guy has been published. Funny thing is the article your link is pointing to seems to say a few things more then the couple of quotes. I'll Illustrate
Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.
That's directly from the article your post sites. So your source doesn't seem to agree with your article. As I read this article the most intresting paragraph to me is this
Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?
The person who wrote the article seems to both admit that there is plenty of evidence outside the chemical and at the same time denies that that would make a difference. If you find a transitional fossil doesn't that prove that regardless of the fact that we understand it completely on a chemical level, that macroevolution has occurred? That's one of the reasons you should believe in macroevolution
James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

This shows a transitional fossil and more importantly how they found it. Showing in a very graphic way the existence of macroevoution

 

[forkup]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

 

[Lutroo]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rather god exist or not, I don't believe he told us the full story and expects us to take care of ourselves.

 

[forkup]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

 

[Lutroo]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

 

[forkup]

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

 

[forkup]

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

 

[Lutroo]

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

 

[Kristian]

My God is secretive and said nothing in his sight for us humans.

 

[forkup]

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution? It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.

 

[Lutroo]

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution? It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.

There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.

 

[forkup]

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution? It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.

There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant

 

[Lutroo]

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution? It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.

There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant

Like I said, none of those fossils are undisputed. You have proven nothing. And there are millions of fossils that have been found, and you're crowing about a handful of them maybe being transitional? Pathetic.

 

[forkup]

Ah so you make a statement , and I'm the one having to look it up? Lucky for you I do. The estimates range from 95 to 99 percent depending on source to put it in perspective we are 10 times more closely related to chimps then mice are to rats. And to your sources being biased. My friend I have shown how they are biased. You post a link to an article, that article quoted an article from a professor. I looked up the original article from that professor and found that he was to say the least very selectivly quoted. I gave you the link to the original article just to show you I wasn't full of it. So if you object to me calling foul when you post a link with biased quoting, it might be a good idea not to post a clearly biased link.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’

In fact, there are about 150 million base pairs that have been added, substituted or deleted.

I read this to. Since you don't want to put up a link. It would put the simularity at 95 percent. I understand why you don't put out that link of course. Since you find statements like this in places like this Greater than 98% Chimp human DNA similarity Not any more - creation.com . I have a question for you. You accused me in the previous post that I will not change my mind no matter how compelling the evidence for it is. I show you a very clear transitional fossil. You obviously don't let that change your mind. My question to you is, what would for you be compelling evidence for evolution? It obviously isn't the entire fossil record, it isn't genetics. To me compelling would be, if you first of could show me a way that the fossil record and genetics doesn't show a natural progression from one species to the next. And then show me that the only other POSSIBLE explanation would be a supreme being.

There is not one undisputed transitional fossil. If evolution really happened, there would be countless transitional fossils. There is not. What the fossil record shows is complete, distinct species. And similarity of DNA is not evidence for evolution. It is evidence that many species share the same DNA. The problem is that evolutionists refuse to consider any other alternative. There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own. This is a fact. Scientists haven't even got a clue how it could have happened. When you look at the number of componets that even the simplest life requires to function, it is obvious that all of those components need to be in place at the same time. These components could not have evolved separately. Bottom line. There is no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution. It's a fairy tale for grownups. But you are free to believe what you want, and I'll see you on Judgement Day.

I notice that you didn't answer my question. So a fish with a neck, wristbones in it's fins and eyes on the top of it's flat head isn't a transitonal fossil? Dispute it if you can. We have found a few transitional fossils. Archeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis,ambulocetids,tiktaalik,amphistium,runcaaria. The fact that there aren't more is easily explained by the nature of the fossilasation process. Since each fossil represents a snapshot in the evolutionary process and, fossilasation in itself is a very rare occurence to begin with. And someone finding said fossils is rarer still. The current estimate of creatures wich are know trough the fossil record is estimated at less then 1 percent of all things that ever lived The fact that we have found any, let alone half a dozen is proof of the fact that transitional fossils where relativly abundant

Like I said, none of those fossils are undisputed. You have proven nothing. And there are millions of fossils that have been found, and you're crowing about a handful of them maybe being transitional? Pathetic.

Again dodging, dispute tiktaalik and what would convince you? Btw humans are a transitional species. We have for instance a tailbone. As the name suggest it's the remnant of a tail. What is the religious explanation for that? If God created us in his image, why would we have bones in our body that don't serve their original function? Isn't God supposed to be a finished product?Vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More examples both in humans and all animals each of wich is a vivid reminder that yes, all animals are still evolving and are in effect transitionary it's easy to see if you care to. look. Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this documents the changes humans have gone trough and also explains that we are not yet perfectly adapted to our means of locomotion, again making it very clear, that humans are not the end product of anything, just a step in evolution. Oh and btw if you call someone pathetic but aren't willing to answer the few questions I put up, you are admitting that your own arguments are weak. Deflecting like you do is not a sign of strenght. And yes we have found millions of fossils but you want very specific fossils, namely you want species that are perfectly in the middle of 2 major classes of animals. And that is not even remotely easy. And the really sick thing is, even if I do show you such a creature, you simply say. "It's disputed" without so much as a single letter of eleboration on the why of that statement. I know you feel above the burden of proof, since you are a religious person, but that is ridiculous.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is plenty of scientific evidence in the fields of genetics and microbiology that shows that life could not possibly have developed on it's own.

that does not negate what life was when it began by whatever means nor that evolution would in someway not be an enhancement of creation - what you are saying is man was created an adult at that time -

where is your evidence?

.

 

[james bond]

Who still thinks humans came from apes?

It just goes to show the extent of the fakery of the evolution scientists. They can't make a monkey out of jb, but have fooled many atheists and others.

Give up already. You have by your own words confirmed everything darwin said so you lost any credebility you might have enjoyed. You can not agree on small changes but object on big changes.

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

.

Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent.

.
It does not mean common descent.

(within the species), your opinion ... however

considering both Flora and Fauna posses those same properties 100% it does represent a decent from an earlier similar origin that few if any in their present configuration are remotely, far less than 90%, similar to in nature today - What does that mean ? [sic].

.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes. This is true. A small difference can produce something altogether different. What evos claim is this difference means macroevolution. It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't. We can't take something like two plants that are similar and create a flower nor do we see it in the wild, i.e. no experiments nor physical evidence.

Now, does the similarity mean a common creator and intelligent designer? The creation scientists would like to think so, but by the same toke we can't prove it either.
Again, no experiments or physical evidence to show creation. There is evidence of intelligence and design though due to complexity, so that could be the tipping point. A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

.

It could also mean that everything had a common Creator.

The atheist scientists claim is that it means common descent and that a small difference can produce major changes.

It their conclusions are true, then there would be evidence of it everywhere. However, we find there isn't.

then there would be evidence of it everywhere

this is an example in nature of one creature changing into another without evidence the two are the same ...


I'll try this as some of us believe some changes occur Spiritually - the Spirit directs alterations to the CNS - Brain after a completion (Sabbath) is accomplished and a new being is created.

the structural change from one species to another may be accomplished Spiritually where the change is first accomplished by the Spirit over a lengthy period of time and then is implemented by a single event that creates a new form without physical evidence of the transition. a form of metamorphosis.

A famous atheist, Anthony Flew, changed his mind after this type of evidence.

that maybe so but certainly he did not become a christian ...

.

Ha ha. Just what are we looking at?

This is true. Flew became a deist. He was raised a Christian, but probably rebelled against it. He realized being an atheist was wrong which is what I have been saying all along. I'm glad he finally was able to change his mind and agree with me.

 

[james bond]

Ha ha. Lucy didn't have any knees. Unless you count one found 1.5 miles away and at different levels in the ground. That's embarrassing.

Let me ask you something. Look at the primate bipedal creatures. Do they have similar skeletal structures? Do they have similar senses, i.e. eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch and taste?

The answer is yes, about 95 and 99 percent the same. What does that mean?

It does not mean common descent. See, I can read your mind. That is fitting the facts to the theory instead of the theory to the facts. What it means is the 1 to 5 percent difference makes all the difference in the world. Apes are not really bipedal creatures. They can walk upright some of the time, but they're quadrupeds.

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
http://creationwiki.org/Archaeopteryx
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

 

[forkup]

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

Nobody ever claimed it wasn't a fish. But it's a fish with a neck it has fins but those fins contain rudementary wristbones, it has a flat head with the eyes on top instead to the sides like a normal fish, in short it shows clear traits of both fishes and tetrapods, that's why it is transitionary the exact thing you and lutroo insist aren't observed in nature. Archeopteryx is another one of those. What I find so funny is that you and lutroo admit that these creatures existed but refute that they are transitionary. You have serious trouble understanding why I don't believe you but I keep on bringing lines of questioning a lot of wich you have no clear answers for. My evidence has predictive capabilities as the tiktaalik find proved. (They didn't find that fossil by chance, it was found because they pinpointed where such a creature should be found)

 

[forkup]

first like I said before. Making blanket statements like, they found lucy's knee 1,5 miles away without siting a source to that ,doesn't come of believable. As to simularities between apes and man doesn't suggest a common ancestor. The simularities between apes and man go right dow to the genetic level. And to put it bluntly genetics doesn't lie. It makes common ancestry not just factual but makes it possible to predict where you will find the right types of animals.

Human and ape DNA is not as similar as most people would like you to believe. It's just another lie that evolution uses to fool the gullible.

back it up. blanket statements without sources doesn't cut it for me

Look it up yourself. It's not my job to educate your ignorant a$$. Besides, you would just claim that my source is biased. Am I right? Of course I am. No evidence, no matter how compelling, would convince you.

If you would give me some compelling evidence I can and have been known to change my position. The problem is I haven't seen any compelling evidence from you or James. As a matter of fact I haven't seen ANY evidence compelling or otherwise

I'm not here to change your mind. Only you can do that. I doubt any evidence will convince you different. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand for you.

BTW the tiktaalik was a fish. The fins that evos claim that it use to walk are found in whales and other creatures of the sea. The fossil evidence is sketchy. It's just the skull and several bone fragments of the shoulder, wrist and fins. The evos placed it next to the archaeopteryx in order to show evolution which you brought up earlier. Is this compelling evidence?
The archaeopteryx is similar to the dromaeosaur which had feathers, too, but archaeopteryx is considerably older than dromaeosaur thought by creation scientists to be able to fly.

lol i just noticed something, you put your foot in your mouth again. There is no fish with shoulders or a wrist those are exclusive to land animals, or like in the case of whales land animals that went back to the sea. So you are saying "oh the fossil is incomplete,it just shows traits of tetrapods and fish"