You, Creationist CANNOT provide superior explanations for the evidence over those which Evolution theory can provide. That's a challenge. Come at me.
If you think you've got the chops to debate the evidence then enter. If you just have a vague, faith-based misunderstanding of evolution then you are going to have a bad time.
Aggressive hook aside, if you are a creationist with genuine questions and legitimately held criticisms then i will be just so happy to discuss those with you😇✌️
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Well, let's see some of that evidence and see if he can offer a better explanation of i
Humans and chimpanzees both carry inactive genes acquired from viruses. This occurs because some viruses insert a copy of their genome into the DNA of whichever species they infect. These are called retro-viruses... HIV is one such.
Where such viruses infect the cells that produce sperm and eggs, they can be passed on across generations.
The human genome contains thousands of these remnants of long-past infections... now rendered harmless... and so does the chimpanzee genome.
Most of them are in exactly the same place on both genomes. That’s astonishing, so I’ll repeat it: most of them are on exactly the same place on both genomes.
Let’s choose an explanation from a few (non-exhaustive) options:
1. astonishing coincidence
2. when the gods created humans they decided to sprinkle around several thousand retro-viruses, and they put the preponderance of retroviruses at matching sites on both species because... umm... because... well... because... stop questioning the gods!
3. The majority of retroviruses match because both species inherited them from a common ancestor, who had itself accumulated them from the line of its own descent.
The small number which do not match are the remnants of infections that each species has warded off independently since divergence from the common ancestor... as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
@newjaninev2 I will not correspond with you on matters such as micro evolution or changes within a species such as wolves being similar to dogs. I am not even going to point out intermediate species etc. Darwin's Theory of Evolution starts at the Big Bang, goes throughout the soup and cell period and tries to explain some form of human evolution over millions of years. I know Evolutionists want to use viruses and the changes that they observe in them, as well as micro evolution which is really just a small change within a species and so on as defense against the reality that there is no such thing as Evolution. Snakes look like earthworms and I bet they share 60% similar DNA. Bats look like butterflies and I bet they share similar DNA and raw materials such as carbon too. With a bit of imagination you can say a cat looks like Count Dracul. But, you can't get away from the fact that all living things are made up from chemicals and other non-living materials and gasses. In fact, when they die they revert back to their original composition. I want you to explain how what ever you want to present came to be alive. It is part of Evolution, the very beginning stage of it. Then we can follow up on that and discuss the other ludicrous ideas mad scientists come up with.
@Anton Wolves are not 'similar' to dogs. Wolves are dogs.
I have just explained to you that there are no 'intermediate' species... didn't you read that comment... or did you not understand it? If you would like a clearer explanation, please ask.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection starts once life has appeared... it is not interested in anything before that.I have already said that life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution, so I cannot understand why you are making reference to this... my definition encompasses that.
You seem to constantly ignore the fact that abiogenesis is bit a part of evolution. Evolution doesn't care about abiogenesis... it is solely concerned with what happens after abiogenesis. They are two completely different topics.
@Anton That's correct... it's not evidence for evolution. Why would anybody think it might be? However, genetic variation within a species is the mechanism whereby the process of evolution happens.
If you had actually read my comments you would have learned that evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles.
Are you saying that the frequency and distribution of alleles doesn't change? That would mean that there's only one species of life on Earth... the first one.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution starts at the Big Bang,
Where did you dredge up that absurd anachronism? Hubble didn't make the red shift observations until the 1920s - Charles Darwin had been DEAD for FORTY YEARS by then!!
If you'll notice, Darwin titled his book
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
It's pretty clear Darwin is talking about the origin of species, not the astronomical origin of the Earth.
However, one of the things required by Darwin's theory about the origin of species is TIME. Millions of years. Darwin was slightly preceded by a geologist name Lyell who observed the surface of the Earth and saw the result of several hundred million years of natural processes at work.
Lyell's observations were only the beginning. It turns out the Earth and the cosmos are filled with clocks. from seasonal layers in glaciers to layers of sedimentary rocks to radioactive decay to supernova remnants. I'm going to put up a separate post that's a short introduction to some of these clocks.
