3. Genetic commonalities.
"Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged."
No it doesn't. It only proves we have a common creator.
Originally posted by galveston75I see you're now screwing with the people who were crazy enough to actually present some evidence for you, as if you actually wanted to know about it. Nice.
I'd love to know more about many things.
That is not the issue here and it's not what this post is about.
Again.......prove to me that evolution is a fact especially when it comes to showing in black and white the actual changing of one kind of species into another.
As has been said before with all the millions of years and all of the millions ...[text shortened]... ils all over the planet to show this fact. Just even one might help you guys but where are they?
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitI would like to see this experiment in human evolution: Get two populations, separate them by who believes in evolution and who believes in creationism.
I see you're now screwing with the people who were crazy enough to actually present some evidence for you, as if you actually wanted to know about it. Nice.
Come back in 100 years and see which one is further along on many specs, like level of education of each population, scientific growth, who still uses coal to heat with and so forth.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm not screwing with anyone. I'm asking a very simple question to all to show proof and so far no one has given it.
I see you're now screwing with the people who were crazy enough to actually present some evidence for you, as if you actually wanted to know about it. Nice.
Just a bunch of what if's and could be's is not a fact.
In reality I want to see the bones of all the fossils that connect the process of any kind of any animal that changes from one kind to another kind as evolution claimed happened. Why is that so hard to understand and show?
If a whale over ions of time turned into a horse, I want to see the proof in the fossil record.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by sonhouseSo I guess your implying that the evolutionist would be better off?
I would like to see this experiment in human evolution: Get two populations, separate them by who believes in evolution and who believes in creationism.
Come back in 100 years and see which one is further along on many specs, like level of education of each population, scientific growth, who still uses coal to heat with and so forth.
02 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75
I'm not screwing with anyone. I'm asking a very simple question to all to show proof and so far no one has given it.
Just a bunch of what if's and could be's is not a fact.
In reality I want to see the bones of all the fossils that connect the process of any kind of any animal that changes from one kind to another kind as evolution claimed happened ...[text shortened]... If a whale over ions of time turned into a horse, I want to see the proof in the fossil record.
02 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Who says that you get to demand what is or is not proof? You have simply selected a test that you happen to know can't be achieved.
I'm not screwing with anyone. I'm asking a very simple question to all to show proof and so far no one has given it.
Just a bunch of what if's and could be's is not a fact.
In reality I want to see the bones of all the fossils that connect the process of any kind of any animal that changes from one kind to another kind as evolution claimed happened ...[text shortened]... If a whale over ions of time turned into a horse, I want to see the proof in the fossil record.
Oh, and by the way, I think it would be more accurate to say a horse turned into a whale. Hopelessly, hopelessly, wrong, but still more accurate than what you said.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by galveston75What do you understand by the word 'species'? Do you know that the scientific definition is not only not very specific, but does not have 'bacteria' as a species? So you must have a non-scientific definition, what is it?
It's still bacteria, not a new species and never will be.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by galveston75A whale turning into a lion? What on earth are you talking about? How can a man who claims to have studied evolution all his life come out with such nonsense?
I'm not screwing with anyone. I'm asking a very simple question to all to show proof and so far no one has given it.
Just a bunch of what if's and could be's is not a fact.
In reality I want to see the bones of all the fossils that connect the process of any kind of any animal that changes from one kind to another kind as evolution claimed happened ...[text shortened]... If a whale over ions of time turned into a horse, I want to see the proof in the fossil record.
There's a nice chapter on the evolution of cetaceans in the book you refuse to read. Send us the address of your Kingdom Hall and we'll get it sent to you.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobTo be fair to galveston75, he said whale into a horse. I think you misread ions (which was meant to be 'eons' I assume).
A whale turning into a lion? What on earth are you talking about? How can a man who claims to have studied evolution all his life come out with such nonsense?
There's a nice chapter on the evolution of cetaceans in the book you refuse to read. Send us the address of your Kingdom Hall and we'll get it sent to you.
However, the rest I think stands.
I was, however, struck by the irony that the question of how whales evolved is dealt with in the very book that galveston75 refuses to read at my expense.