Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Autodidact]

Now you may say, couldn't this pattern be consistent with special creation as well? Might not God, for his own reasons, have decided this was the best or most efficient way to design and organize His creation?

It depends. If by "creation" you mean something very broad and general, just that some divine Creator in some way at some time created things, then yes. He could have made this choice. Or the ladder thing. Or the chart. Or no particular pattern, each thing completely unique with no relation to each other. Or a number of separate trees. Or anything else whatsoever. And that is one of the reasons that this kind of creationism is not scientific. It makes no specific predictions, is not falsifiable, and provides no specific explanation. For that reason, it is religious, not scientific.

As for special creation, specifically, YEC, it does make some specific explanations and predictions, which we will see later have turned out to be false. If anything, I think it predicts that each thing would be different and unrelated, because God created them each separately. If anything, the fact that they are related in this precise way would be, at most, a coincidence. Special creation neither explains nor predicts it.

I should have said earlier that science values two types of evidence most. One is when a hypothesis explains something specific that has been observed, and does so specifically--it tells us why things are this way, and not some other. Creationism does not do this, because God is both all-powerful and unknowable, so can never explain any specific thing--He always could have chosen the opposite, or any variation.

The most valuable and significant evidence is when a hypothesis makes a specific prediction, which turns out to be correct. That's when scientists sit up and salute. The particular evidence is kinda like that, because we already knew about the nested heirarchy, but ToE predict that it will work for each and every species, hundreds of millions of them, and it does.

 

[painted wolf]

here is a question I have about god making all the "kinds" (whatever a kind is) seperately.

If god handmade all the "kinds" individually and we are do not share a common ancestor, why can we make a glow in the dark rabbit?
How is it we can take a gene from a jellyfish and plug it into a mammal and get it to work.

you can't do that with a designed item like a computer program.

wa:do

 

[roli]

I'm confused. You think that species change, but never into new species? Why not? Are you saying that new species never evolve? If I cited actual examples of that very thing, would it change your mind?

Could you explain to me your view of the peppermoth theory ? Thanks !!
What is it ,an indication of evolution in process, being one species changing into another ,adaptation amongst same species,

 

[4Pillars]

Now you may say, couldn't this pattern be consistent with special creation as well? Might not God, for his own reasons, have decided this was the best or most efficient way to design and organize His creation?

It depends. If by "creation" you mean something very broad and general, just that some divine Creator in some way at some time created things, then yes. He could have made this choice. Or the ladder thing. Or the chart. Or no particular pattern, each thing completely unique with no relation to each other. Or a number of separate trees. Or anything else whatsoever. And that is one of the reasons that this kind of creationism is not scientific. It makes no specific predictions, is not falsifiable, and provides no specific explanation. For that reason, it is religious, not scientific.

As for special creation, specifically, YEC, it does make some specific explanations and predictions, which we will see later have turned out to be false. If anything, I think it predicts that each thing would be different and unrelated, because God created them each separately. If anything, the fact that they are related in this precise way would be, at most, a coincidence. Special creation neither explains nor predicts it.

I should have said earlier that science values two types of evidence most. One is when a hypothesis explains something specific that has been observed, and does so specifically--it tells us why things are this way, and not some other. Creationism does not do this, because God is both all-powerful and unknowable, so can never explain any specific thing--He always could have chosen the opposite, or any variation.

The most valuable and significant evidence is when a hypothesis makes a specific prediction, which turns out to be correct. That's when scientists sit up and salute. The particular evidence is kinda like that, because we already knew about the nested heirarchy, but ToE predict that it will work for each and every species, hundreds of millions of them, and it does.

Creationism does not pretend to be observable in the present, it simply offers a scientific explanation for what we see in the present. On the other hand Evolutionism merely PRESUMES that macro-evolution is an ongoing process, as long as they can cite micro-evolution for evidence they think they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

:sorry1:

 

[4Pillars]

Things reproduce according to their kind, just like the Bible says (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). They always have and they always will—while ever this world exists.

… But no new 'kinds'
There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. If there are no genes present for producing feathers, you can breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get anything with feathers! Polyploidy (multiplication of the number of chromosomes), chromosome translocations, recombination and even (possibly) mutations can generate 'new species', but not new information, not new characteristics for which there were no genes to start with. Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London)


:yes:

 

[4Pillars]

O.K., now to get back to the theory of evolution. I hope that everyone here who wants to criticize it has read my basic explanation of the theory and understands it. If you think I have not explained it correctly, please say so, and why. Otherwise, that established, at last we move on.

More intro:

First, you have to understand that evolution is not a philosophy or world view, it's a very specific scientific theory about a very specific thing. A "theory" in science is a complete explanation of something in nature, incorporating and explaining all known facts. For example, there is a theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, and the like.

Science is not about proof, and we are not going to prove anything. Science is all about evidence. All of what we consider scientific knowledge is based on evidence, not proof.

For that reason, all scientific knowledge is provisional. Nothing is ever known for absolute certainty, not even that the earth is round. It's all on a sliding scale, from wild speculation to virtual certainty. When something reaches that virtual certainty, and explains an important phenomenon completely, it's an accepted scientific theory. That's where we are with evolution now. Nevertheless, we are constantly gathering new data, advancing and refining that theory. That's how science works: it builds on well-established theories and goes forward to more accurate and precise explanations. At the fringe there are always questions that are not yet resolved, and controversies.

Nope, it is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question. Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method. Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes. So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.

Having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what evolution is.

 

[4Pillars]

I hereby resurrect this thread, so I'm not a liar.

O.K., the evidence. The first piece. You will remember that according to ToE, new species branch out from existing species. You have one species, and another one branches out from it just like the branch of a tree. Now eventually the first one is going to go extinct, but nevertheless if you had total knowledge, and all the species that have every lived (hundreds of millions of them) they would all be related to each other just like a tree, with a single trunk, a few large limbs, each limb having branches growing out of it, and so on, down to the newest tiny little twig at the end. Therefore, ToE says, all of the organisms on earth should show just this pattern of relationship, and no other. You should see a branching pattern of similarity, and this should be the only logical and objective way to organize them and understand their relationships.

And in fact this turns out to be true. Every organism ever discovered, current or extinct, is related to all the others, and can objectively, by multiple traits, be arranged into this "tree of life." This isn't really a prediction of ToE, because Linneaus (a creationist) observed that this was the best way to organize living things before ToE was figured out. However, the grand ToE, the one that says that this is how all species originated, does predict that this will be the case for each and every organism, period. So in that sense it contains millions of predictions that have been borne out.

Before Linneus, the common view was that life was organized in one big chain or ladder, with the "highest" at the top (people) and the "lowest" at the bottom (slime molds?). This turned out to be wrong, as Linneus and ToE discovered. You might also arrange things in a chart form, or just willy nilly, with no particular pattern of relationships. According to ToE, the only objective, coherent way life could possibly be organized is in this tree shape, which Biologists call a "nested hierarchy."
And we see that in fact this is reality on the ground. And in the air. And in the sea.

There is a lot more to say about this important fact, which IMO in itself is powerful evidence for ToE, once you understand its implication, so please post if you want to discuss or argue.

In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the reproductive isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.)

Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., but these do NOT help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but NOT an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes for making feathers on reptiles, for example, or giving sight to sightless animals.


So far, after 4Billion years, still Evols has no evidence to show to prove their speculative case. Evolutionism is the odd man out.

 

[Autodidact]

Could you explain to me your view of the peppermoth theory ? Thanks !!
What is it ,an indication of evolution in process, being one species changing into another ,adaptation amongst same species,

There is no such thing as the peppermoth theory. Maybe you're referring to the way that the pepppered moth adapts by evolving a darker and lighter coloration, depending on how dark the trees on which they light are? What did you want to know about it?

 

[Autodidact]

Nope, it is actually IM-possible to separate philosophy from science or the methods of science. That's because the question, "what is science?" is itself a philosophical question.

That's true, but so is the question, "What is cooking? That doesn't mean that we have to do philosophy to cook.

Try as you might but there is no such thing as an authoritative definition of science or the scientific method.

Yes there is.

Scientists and philosophers of science until today are in disagreement on it and struggle to define all of its essential attributes.

And?

So for evolutionists to claim that creationism is not science simply begs the question.

No, it doesn't. There is no accepted definition of science that includes creationism.

Having a rich imagination doesn’t make an event repeatable, but it does demonstrate that non-repeatable events of the past are subject to speculation, which is what evolution is.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your point here. Could you re-state it? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the reproductive isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.)

O.K., if you say so. (1) What does this have to do with the subject at hand? (2) Define "information" in this context.

Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., but these do NOT help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but NOT an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes for making feathers on reptiles, for example, or giving sight to sightless animals.

They are not necessary to explain evolution. DNA isn't necessary to explain evolution. I don't think you understand what the theory of evolution says. Did you read my posts on the subject? If not, we're really not discussing the same thing. For example, it has nothing to do with "information." I don't think you understand what the term "macro-evolution" means. In any case, new genes, new features, new organs, new everything in creatures come about via mutations all the time.

So far, after 4Billion years, still Evols has no evidence to show to prove their speculative case. Evolutionism is the odd man out.

Well, I just presented the first piece of evidence, and expect to present a lot more, so why don't you respond to it? And the word you're looking for is "biologist."


[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

Second piece of evidence: Homologies. Homologies are specific resemblances between different creatures. It's not that they exist, that some animals have the same features or look the same as other animals, but that the similarities follow the pattern I described above--animals have the same features if they descended from a common ancestor, not if they do the same things. For example, we know that bats, humans, and whales are all mammals. So even though they look very different, they are built the same, because they descended from a common ancestor. Birds look like bats, but they are related much more distantly--their common ancestor is further in the past. So, if you look under the skin, bird's wings aren't built like bat's wings. Rather, bat's wings are built like hands and flippers.
Here's the bat and bird wing skeletons:

Here's a bat's wing with some other mammal skeletons:

Can you see how the bat's wing, although its function is completely different from your arm, is built on the same plan? See the "fingers?" The pattern of homology follows not the function, but the ancestry of the creatures. ToE predicts this: that creatures will retain similar forms according to their ancestral relationships, not their similarity of appearance or functional role. I think it's wild.

Again, there are thousands, millions, really, of these homologies, and they always follow this pattern. And again, if you think about it, it's very strong evidence that species arise in the way I described: by branching out from existing species. Bats don't need those bones, but they evolved from animals that have them, so they just gradually changed, getting longer and lighter.

Might a divine creator have designed creatures this way? Sure--He might have designed them any old way. Remember, He's unknowable. But ToE predicts this precise pattern, that creatures will always retain homologies according to their ancestry, and indeed, they do. For example, all vertebrates that have limbs have 4 of them. Six might be nice, but they descended from 4 limbed creatures, so 4 it is. Also two eyes, two ears and so forth. Four eyes might have been useful, but our ancestors had two, and so it goes.

 

[camanintx]

Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., but these do NOT help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but NOT an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes for making feathers on reptiles, for example, or giving sight to sightless animals.

What do you think mutation does to our DNA? If human, cat and dog DNA is 96% homologous, then how much mutation is required to create a new species?

DNA replication during cell division is not a perfect process. About 1 in every 40 million base pair transcriptions results in an error. Since there are about 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, that means every one of us has about 75 mutations in each cell of our body. If you assume that dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor about 42 million years ago, or 21 million generations, then there is more than enough time for their DNA to diverge 4%.

 

[Azakel]

Second piece of evidence: Homologies. Homologies are specific resemblances between different creatures. It's not that they exist, that some animals have the same features or look the same as other animals, but that the similarities follow the pattern I described above--animals have the same features if they descended from a common ancestor, not if they do the same things. For example, we know that bats, humans, and whales are all mammals. So even though they look very different, they are built the same, because they descended from a common ancestor. Birds look like bats, but they are related much more distantly--their common ancestor is further in the past. So, if you look under the skin, bird's wings aren't built like bat's wings. Rather, bat's wings are built like hands and flippers.
Here's the bat and bird wing skeletons:

Here's a bat's wing with some other mammal skeletons:

Can you see how the bat's wing, although its function is completely different from your arm, is built on the same plan? See the "fingers?" The pattern of homology follows not the function, but the ancestry of the creatures. ToE predicts this: that creatures will retain similar forms according to their ancestral relationships, not their similarity of appearance or functional role. I think it's wild.

Again, there are thousands, millions, really, of these homologies, and they always follow this pattern. And again, if you think about it, it's very strong evidence that species arise in the way I described: by branching out from existing species. Bats don't need those bones, but they evolved from animals that have them, so they just gradually changed, getting longer and lighter.

Might a divine creator have designed creatures this way? Sure--He might have designed them any old way. Remember, He's unknowable. But ToE predicts this precise pattern, that creatures will always retain homologies according to their ancestry, and indeed, they do. For example, all vertebrates that have limbs have 4 of them. Six might be nice, but they descended from 4 limbed creatures, so 4 it is. Also two eyes, two ears and so forth. Four eyes might have been useful, but our ancestors had two, and so it goes.

That's cool Autodidact, thank you for sharing. Some people just don't want to listen. To me the ToE makes sense, more then "Creationism" does. And funny thing(though this might not matter at all really)..... I'm a Theist. Oh by the Gods ^_^

 

[Autodidact]

Next evidence: atavisms and vestigial organs. This is actually a specific type of homology. Again, it's not just that they exist, but that they follow the pattern of descent. Vestigial features are atrophied, rudimentary versions of structures that exist in a more complex, functional form in another species. ToE says that organisms will have vestigial features of their ancestors. So it's not just that they exist, but again that they will follow this pattern over and over.

You can see how this would happen. If you have a creature with a given feature or organ, and a new species branches out, and another, etc. The new new new species doesn't need that feature, but it comes along for the ride, gradually withering away.

Here's some examples:
Wings on ostriches (and other flightless birds.) They descended from birds that needed wings to fly, so they still have them, even though they don't work for that. They use them maybe to help balance while they're running, but obviously you don't the full deluxe wing with all those feathers and aerodynamic functionality for that.

Another great example would be sightless fish, such as those that live in caves. They're blind, but they retain little eyes that do absolutely nothing for them.

But we can trace their descent from sighted fish by the presence of these vestigial structures. The story of how they evolved from sighted fish is retained in their vestigial eyes.

 

[s2a]

*Sigh*


...yet another compelling example as to why Evolution Theory should NEVER be "debated" amongst adherents of religious dogmatic/creedal mandates of inflexibility and rote acceptance.

One must ask why "equal time" is afforded to "Flat Earth Society" advocates in this (supposed) time of both intellectual and evidence-laden arguments of well-burdened proofs.

Luddites indeed, and all...

I can't wait to challenge the theories of "intelligent falling", and the claims of a conscious "Creation". If "nothing can spring from nothing"...then where does "God" come from. Indeed, whom then is HIS "Father" (citing the "impossibility" conundrum)?

If Evolution Theory fails for some lacking of a provisional "cause", then it should pose no challenge for any adherents of any "God Theory" to present evidences that (any) GOD could not exist beyond (yet) another "causal" circumstance. DId THE "Creator" arise from "nothing", or if not...from what OTHER "thing"?

Beyond pure, unadulterated, and unquestioning aspects of "faith"...what elements/methods/tests are available to either confirm or dismiss ANY claims of an "existent" god...or presumptively (sole) causal "agent" of/for human existence?

If any claimed "god" is rendered moot, or otherwise irrelevant to any such tests or measures, then why would anyone feel compelled to accept claims that the Earth is FLAT...or only 6000 years old?

 

[roli]

That's cool Autodidact, thank you for sharing. Some people just don't want to listen. To me the ToE makes sense, more then "Creationism" does. And funny thing(though this might not matter at all really)..... I'm a Theist. Oh by the Gods ^_^

I hear some interesting similarities and some common features about different species, the hand like features in the bat, whale and human arm,but they are still individually DISTInct by their limited DNA within species.
I mean do you understand what ToE is implying, that we have a bit of every other species within us, that is loud.
Yet the funny thing is, why are'nt some of these species that we have common ancestory with, not completely extinct, I mean if what ToE says about certain things phasing or dying out,should'nt our common ancestors ultimately be extinct.

Where is the evidence of these species actually branching out ?

I would like to hear a complete list of what our comon ancestors are, please.
Is this speculative view shared by all ToE ADHERENTS

I have often seen this Sylvia Brown,she's an interesting study, on the outside seems convincing, I guess, but I think if anybody receives and processes enough information, from enough people ,learning and studying similarities in human behavior,emotions, needs and psycology, in death related incidences,they can piece together a very compelling argument that not only convinces the immediate family members but the whole audience that they have indeed talked with the dead. Is it no wonder people flock to hear her perdictions , but a quick study of her, unbias of any emotional attachment from passed loved ones, one quickly see's the brilliant orchestrating one can do with enough information. Everybody comes to hear from her what they have already imagined ,so she gives them what they want.

This vivid picture of what the imagination can do ,with enough information piecing it together as if it all fits together ,without mentioning the enormous gaps and holes that seems to allow so much logic to fall through.

 

[roli]

Next evidence: atavisms and vestigial organs. This is actually a specific type of homology. Again, it's not just that they exist, but that they follow the pattern of descent. Vestigial features are atrophied, rudimentary versions of structures that exist in a more complex, functional form in another species. ToE says that organisms will have vestigial features of their ancestors. So it's not just that they exist, but again that they will follow this pattern over and over.

This must be common and evidential in all livng species than, name some in the human anatomy

You can see how this would happen. If you have a creature with a given feature or organ, and a new species branches out, and another, etc. The new new new species doesn't need that feature, but it comes along for the ride, gradually withering away.

Please list some vestigials in humans, by rights we should have a whole list of them within the human body ,I know several organs can be removed and we still function.
Share this theory regarding humans ,I am aware that there were 180 but have since been reduced to "0"
But maybe you have some new and revealing truth about this.

Here's some examples:
Wings on ostriches (and other flightless birds.) They descended from birds that needed wings to fly, so they still have them, even though they don't work for that. They use them maybe to help balance while they're running, but obviously you don't the full deluxe wing with all those feathers and aerodynamic functionality for that.

Nice hypothesis, but I will look into that ?
I'm sure the wings or vestigials do help balance but are really only part of some random coincidence.

Another great example would be sightless fish, such as those that live in caves. They're blind, but they retain little eyes that do absolutely nothing for them.

But we can trace their descent from sighted fish by the presence of these vestigial structures. The story of how they evolved from sighted fish is retained in their vestigial eyes

Give me the name of the fish and I will check this out

 

[Zeno]

This must be common and evidential in all livng species than, name some in the human anatomy

To name a few...
Source

VOMERONASAL ORGAN
A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.
​

EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.
​

WISDOM TEETH
Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.
​

NECK RIB
A set of cervical ribs—possibly leftovers from the age of reptiles—still appear in less than 1 percent of the population. They often cause nerve and artery problems.
​

THIRD EYELID
A common ancestor of birds and mammals may have had a membrane for protecting the eye and sweeping out debris. Humans retain only a tiny fold in the inner corner of the eye.
​

DARWIN’S POINT
A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans. It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds.
​

SUBCLAVIUS MUSCLE
This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few have two.
​

PALMARIS MUSCLE
This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery.
​

MALE NIPPLES
Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk.
​

ERECTOR PILI
Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously lost most of the fur.
​

APPENDIX
This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an appendectomy.
​

BODY HAIR
Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection, but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function.
​

PLANTARIS MUSCLE
Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population.
​

THIRTEENTH RIB
Our closest cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas, have an extra set of ribs. Most of us have 12, but 8 percent of adults have the extras.
​

MALE UTERUS
A remnant of an undeveloped female reproductive organ hangs off the male prostate gland.
​

FIFTH TOE
Lesser apes use all their toes for grasping or clinging to branches. Humans need mainly the big toe for balance while walking upright.
​

FEMALE VAS DEFERENS
What might become sperm ducts in males become the epoophoron in females, a cluster of useless dead-end tubules near the ovaries.
​

PYRAMIDALIS MUSCLE
More than 20 percent of us lack this tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle that attaches to the pubic bone. It may be a relic from pouched marsupials.
​

COCCYX
These fused vertebrae are all that’s left of the tail that most mammals still use for balance and communication. Our hominid ancestors lost the need for a tail before they began walking upright.
​

PARANASAL SINUSES
The nasal sinuses of our early ancestors may have been lined with odor receptors that gave a heightened sense of smell, which aided survival. No one knows why we retain these perhaps troublesome mucus-lined cavities, except to make the head lighter and to warm and moisten the air we breathe.
​

 

[4Pillars]

What do you think mutation does to our DNA? If human, cat and dog DNA is 96% homologous, then how much mutation is required to create a new species?

DNA replication during cell division is not a perfect process. About 1 in every 40 million base pair transcriptions results in an error. Since there are about 3 billion base pairs in human DNA, that means every one of us has about 75 mutations in each cell of our body. If you assume that dogs and cats evolved from a common ancestor about 42 million years ago, or 21 million generations, then there is more than enough time for their DNA to diverge 4%.

How is evolution "evident" in our anatomy? What, homology? You are confusing the evidence from its interpretation. Even before Darwin, the same human anatomy is explainable by a concept called ideal archetypes, meaning the Creator used the superior design prototype throughout His Creation. Homology is no proof of evolution anymore than similarities between volkswagens and a porsches are due to a common ancestor.

You are apparently unaware that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution. What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).

:sorry1:

 

[4Pillars]

Next evidence: atavisms and vestigial organs. This is actually a specific type of homology. Again, it's not just that they exist, but that they follow the pattern of descent. Vestigial features are atrophied, rudimentary versions of structures that exist in a more complex, functional form in another species. ToE says that organisms will have vestigial features of their ancestors. So it's not just that they exist, but again that they will follow this pattern over and over.

You can see how this would happen. If you have a creature with a given feature or organ, and a new species branches out, and another, etc. The new new new species doesn't need that feature, but it comes along for the ride, gradually withering away.

Here's some examples:
Wings on ostriches (and other flightless birds.) They descended from birds that needed wings to fly, so they still have them, even though they don't work for that. They use them maybe to help balance while they're running, but obviously you don't the full deluxe wing with all those feathers and aerodynamic functionality for that.

Another great example would be sightless fish, such as those that live in caves. They're blind, but they retain little eyes that do absolutely nothing for them.

But we can trace their descent from sighted fish by the presence of these vestigial structures. The story of how they evolved from sighted fish is retained in their vestigial eyes.

First of all what you listed above are examples of MICRO-evolution. It's funny how evolutionists like to talk so much about MACRO-evolution ("from goo to you" theory) but all they can offer as evidence are examples of adaption WITHIN a specie. Well for your information, Creationism has no problems with adaptations and micro-evolution. It's this BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept because 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics.

Secondly, you might want to know that it is a MYTH that evolution has any practical applications. Just check out this admission cited by anti-creationist Larry Witham in his book Where Darwin Meets the Bible (Oxford University Press, 2002) cites a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000, which shows how limited evolution really is as a practical scientific theory:

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,’ most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word “evolution” in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organized 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families.

Genetic information. The fact is macro-evolution from simple to complex creatures requires more than beneficial mutations and natural selection, it also requires the creation of NEW genetic information. The difference between a simple and a complex creature isn't just that the latter has more genetic materials than the other, it's that complex creatures have greater amounts of genetic information than simple creatures. Mutations and natural selections will not yield new genetic information. Go ahead, refute that



:yes: