CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
These mice are glowing because scientists inserted a gene found in certain bioluminescent jellyfish into their DNA. So we know beyond a shadow of doubt that subtle changes in the DNA give different outcomes. We also know beyond shadow of doubt that DNA changes naturally, either trough mutation (which is rare) or natural ways (that is sexual copulation of two individuals with different genetic structure that have an offspring with herated traits from both its parents)
So arguing that species cant slowly change with generations is denying very obvious facts. In fact humans even have organs that no longer serve any purpose and this is another clue that humans have changed through the years.
Now: I think a lot of the confusion religious people have over evolutionary theory is that they find it hard to swallow the fact that one species can evolve into another. First thing that has to be said is that a "speices" is a taxonomic rank, that is; a method of classification. It is like the decimal system - it is a tool for studying life - There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is, but in effect it serves a similar purpose as geometry of Eyuclid serves for mathematicians. You could make up a different kind of geometry classifications (Bucky Fuller for example, has done so).
Creationists often say things like: "how could there first be a fly, that then evolved into a fish, that then evolved into a snake, then pig, then monkey, then human"
This is a classic strawman - no scientist has ever described evolution in that way.
This is also a sign that Creationists are stuck in the linear-thinking that plagues Christian thought. By looking at the first link above you can see that no one is saying that Evolution is linear.
When an evolutionary scientist says in a causal manner that "first there where single cell organisms, then there where multicelluar organisms, then insects, then small sea creatures, and etc; than that is him describing that first there where simple organisms that evolved (in many different directions) into more complex organisms - then some got extinct and others survived to evolve (again in many different directions) into more complex organisms - and after about four billion years we had humans.
And in the end I want to say that it is true that all this complexity is..., well "complex" - the underlying principle of how this can happen (that is the four acids that make up the DNA coding principle) is quite simple and elegant.
I agree. Besides the fact that there are small proofs like that, evolution is the most logical thing. You, perhaps, believe that a mysterious deity configured every animal, and that years of research is all false regarding natural selection and evolution. So not only do you have your proof, but you now also have the logical reason as to why it's a real phenomenon. Tell me, Bookhead, do you believe that natural selection is real?
I'm just going to point out that God wouldn't be holding up a sign supporting evolution and that if you believe that god created evolution then you are either completely mixed up or insane.
I do not believe God created evolution because I do not believe in God, but I know several Christians who do. Why is it impossible for God to have created evolution?
ChuckHenry is completely right. God can't have hold up a sign because there is no God. God is non-existent and therefore had nothing to do with evolution. The fact that there even IS evolution disproves the Bible's God.
First I would like to point out that this is more of a creation vs. evolution debate and might be structured better if it were a for/against debate. Putting that aside I would like to let everybody know that I an religous and believe in God and the whole nine yards, and we use the Bible primarily as our proof along with some logic. Evolutionist, on the other hand use physics, theories, and science for their proof. My point in saying this is that whatever one side says, the other will use their form of evidence to to not only refude it but make it logical and part of what they believe. To make a long story short, the religous side uses the Bible, a book made by man, and evolutionist use science, a book and theories created by men. So each sid ehas the same reasons to believe what they beilive.
sure you could say all metaphors/language/theories/books are created by man. That doesn't mean all of them are equal.
The metaphors of physics and science are observable, repeatable ones, or extrapolated from observable ones. The metaphors in the bible concerning creation are not ones of observable or repeatable phenomenon. one is rooted in basic everyday experience, the other in a story. one has premises confirmed by experiment, the other by faith.
First I would like to point out that this is more of a creation vs. evolution debate and might be structured better if it were a for/against debate. Putting that aside I would like to let everybody know that I an religous and believe in God and the whole nine yards, and we use the Bible primarily as our proof along with some logic. Evolutionist, on the other hand use physics, theories, and science for their proof. My point in saying this is that whatever one side says, the other will use their form of evidence to to not only refude it but make it logical and part of what they believe. To make a long story short, the religous side uses the Bible, a book made by man, and evolutionist use science, a book and theories created by men. So each sid ehas the same reasons to believe what they beilive.
The evidence isn't equal. Science is based upon observing reality, and finding out how it works. The bible is not evidence of how the world or universe function. You may as well be arguing that you use The Hobbit as your proof.
The reason these debates persist is that your side doesn't use logic consistently. You believe what you believe for purely emotional reasons that boil down to "I really, truly, extremely want this to be true, I need this to be true." No amount of logic or evidence is going to convince you that you're wrong because you'll go through amazing efforts, grasping at straws the entire way, to justify your emotional need for the bible to be true. You'll believe in conspiracy theories, you'll grasp at incomplete or out of context evidence, you'll look at only a tiny part of the big picture, you'll even listen to conmen who sell propaganda just in order to be able to keep your delusion going.
You're saying almost the same thing that I said in my comment on MrJackNixon's exerpt, exept you're stating it in an evolutionist point of view.
This isn't a matter of opinion or point of view. As I already said, science bases itself on reality, not opinion. In this "debate" you're a flat-earther.
You don't seem to understand this argument, or the point of arguing. You say that both sides are equally right because we both have our own form of evidence to back up our beliefs. This does not make both sides equally as right. To see which side is correct, we must look at the actual evidence provided. Christians provide one book that uses no science or logic whatsoever, to explain how and why everything is. Atheist evidence shows that evolution is real using years of research, plenty of logic, and unlimited reason to back up our view. Both sides may have evidence, but only one side's evidence is correct. When you look at what the evidence contains, the answer should be obvious.
Its not that I see each side equal because of their evidence. What I'm trying to say in as little words as possible is that when you are arguing your side in any matter, you will conform you're information to say what you believe and what you want to say. In doing this you completely close your eyes to the other side's view and you are completely shut down to any opinions contradictory to your own. Just as MrJackNixon views the Bible as a total load of crap, I view his theories and opinions likewise. It's a natural human reaction and is what keeps debates such as this open for months until people on each side get too frustrated to continue.
Oh I see what you are saying. You mean to say that you believe you know what the other side is thinking because of your psychic abilities? No. First of all, the Christians didn't exactly present evidence, where as we did. So we can't really ignore something that's not their. But you saying you inherently fell our arguments are crap before you even consider them is very close minded and selfish. But, these are the delusions that all Christians are forced to have.
Many atheists believe that it is simply ludicrous to believe in something with no evidence or logic to back up the beliefs. So lets take this from a religious stand point. As hard as it is to believe, there IS evidence! For example the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a recorded, undeniable historic event that really happened anywhere between 1440B.C. and 1290B.C. Also other supporting information, like capturing of cities and political leaders, are accurate for the time they took place throughout the bible. If these facts are there, who's to say that the rest of the bible is not fact?
"Also other supporting information, like capturing of cities and political leaders, are accurate for the time they took place throughout the bible. If these facts are there, who's to say that the rest of the bible is not fact?"
Also other supporting information, like the discoveries of the endogenous retrovirus and DNA, are indisputable for the time they took place in evolutionary science. If these facts are there, who's to say that evolution is not fact?
Many atheists believe that it is simply ludicrous to believe in something with no evidence or logic to back up the beliefs. So lets take this from a religious stand point. As hard as it is to believe, there IS evidence!
Every religion claims to have evidence. There is no religion presently, however, which can back up its claims when met with reasonable scepticism.
For example the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is a recorded, undeniable historic event that really happened anywhere between 1440B.C. and 1290B.C.
It's only undeniable to Christians. To archaeologists and other scientists in this field of study, no evidence has ever been found that there were Israelites in a desert for forty years.
Also other supporting information, like capturing of cities and political leaders, are accurate for the time they took place throughout the bible. If these facts are there, who's to say that the rest of the bible is not fact?
That's your problem. You don't have a sceptical mind. When a scientist formulates a hypothesis, he must support all of his assertions with prior research or risk being ignored as making unjustified claims. This is peer review, when equally versed experts look into your research and recreate your experiments to validate your findings. Every step must be supported by evidence. You on the other hand seem to think it's okay to make gigantic leaps without proper evidence. Even if one thing in the bible were found true, and there probably are a few things in the bible which are true, since all literature and written oral traditions have an iota of historical basis, it is gullible to make the leap of faith and claim "therefore god created the universe from nothing 6000 years ago, and caused a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, etc." Sceptics and scientists would never make such large assumptions on the basis of something else unrelated being true.
Your reasoning is like "Harry potter takes place in London. We know that London, England exists! Therefore it's reasonable to assume that the book and movies are true!"
Just as MrJackNixon views the Bible as a total load of crap, I view his theories and opinions likewise. It's a natural human reaction and is what keeps debates such as this open for months until people on each side get too frustrated to continue.
The bible is a mythology. Science is a heavily researched and corrected enterprise. That's why we frown upon you for making such asymmetric comparisons.
" no evidence has ever been found that there were Israelites in a desert for forty years."
I didn't say that there was evidence of Israelites wandering in the desert. I stated that there was evidence of the exodus. By this I meant the capture and release of the Israelites by the Egyptians, and as hard as it is for you to believe there IS evidence. I provided a few links to get you started. While some are better than others, it's evidence nonetheless. This evidence also backs up my claim about the political leaders and minor supporting events around the times they were in rule or happened.
"The bible is a mythology"
If there is evidence that this event occurred, then that makes it fact or a historical event like I stated before.
I didn't say that there was evidence of Israelites wandering in the desert. I stated that there was evidence of the exodus. By this I meant the capture and release of the Israelites by the Egyptians, and as hard as it is for you to believe there IS evidence. I provided a few links to get you started. While some are better than others, it's evidence nonetheless. This evidence also backs up my claim about the political leaders and minor supporting events around the times they were in rule or happened.
Correction noted.
If there is evidence that this event occurred, then that makes it fact or a historical event like I stated before.
Those are not scientific publications, however from what I read the evidence presented was not specific enough to affirm the biblical account. It would be more accurate to say, from the evidence they presented, that some disorder afflicted Egypt millennia ago within that timeframe, but that no historical records exist of the ten plagues except that an unusual amount of children died and some Egyptian rulers may have had boils. We don't see evidence of blood, lice, frogs, flies, darkness, locust swarms, etc. We don't have evidence of many Egyptians covered in boils besides the royalty. In other words only a vague affirmation of some tragedies in that time, and tragedies affect all empires.
The Ipuwer Papyrus is a poem that is not agreed upon whether it reflects pure fiction or reality, or a mix of both. It's also very likely that the Ipuwer Papyrus influenced the oral traditions which lead to the biblical Exodus writings, in other words one culture borrowing from the other.
Science isn't made by man. It is discovered by man. It would have existed had we not been here. The Bible on the other hand is completely dependent on humanity's existence. Therefore, we can logically derive that the Bible has human biases, creativity, and moral structures, and that science is objective, neutral, and amoral.
Why was I downvoted without a refutation. That's not the right kind of attitude. Are you trying to silence opinion? Or at least anyone's opinion that doesn't stand to your (the downvoter's) opinion?
wow, so viruses have contributed to our DNA; I never heard that before and its quite remarkable; cool :) thanks for sharing.
apparently they have to do with pregnancy as well. i wonder if viruses like the common cold evolved mostly independently then or came about as a evolution of a smaller biological system with in a organism later mutating into the cold virus.
Just like casper, a big problem for me with evolution is that, according to evolution, every thing came from something smaller, thus there HAS to be a smallest organism somewhere, right? So where did the smallest possible living thing come from?
One theory is that the highly excited gamma rays were able to promote certain chemicals in such a way as to form "life", the most basic kind, in protein chains or amino acids. From then on, after eventually the acids began to get complicated and replicate, evolution took over. That's just a theory, and as far as I know, there's minimal evidence. One study I know took place that semi confirms this when it placed the basic elements on Earth before there was life and left the system (closed by the way) for a while to develop, and a gooey substance formed that was amino acids. It was "Miller's Experiment" and began the theory of abiogenesis.
Just like casper, a big problem for me with evolution is that, according to evolution, every thing came from something smaller, thus there HAS to be a smallest organism somewhere, right? So where did the smallest possible living thing come from?
We know from research into abiogenesis that early Earth conditions were very conducive to the production of amino acids, nucleotides and organic compounds. However what is still being worked out is what most likely catalysed these molecules into forming eventual self-replicating systems. Some reasonable hypotheses include deep-sea vents, because they would provide the necessary energy in the form of heat. Others include a special clay which would serve as a scaffolding for early molecules. However, what we are certain of is that the molecules did eventually self-replicate, and grow more complex. You would find ribozymes (a cross between nucleic acids and enzymes, these allow genetic information to replicate without requiring a sophisticated genetic code). Eventually these molecules would draw phospholipid bilayers as their cellular membrane, whether this was before or after DNA evolved is not clearly established yet. We see very simple pre-cells presently as "protobionts" which makes us think this is possible. Eventually organelles would form as one proto-cell takes in another, and symbiosis is reached (mitochondria in our cells and chloroplasts in plants support this because they have unique genomes). Basically, pre-cells at this point are continually competing to acquire the chemicals to replicate, and those pre-cells which best gather resources and best replicate "win" the competition as the oceans become filled by more of them. However this isn't evolution yet because none of these pre-cells is alive at this point. At this point they are merely simple chemicals in a primitive membrane. Eventually they become complex enough to have some rudimentary inheritance going on, and at that point they are cells. Then evolution takes place. The transition from ribozymes to RNA to DNA is an area of active research.
So basically, you won't find a scientist who thinks cells just popped into existence. The consensus is that it was a very slow process spanning billions of years, starting with simple, easy to produce organic molecules, growing until you get a very simple, early cell.
You and Conro are basically saying the same thing, and correct me if I'm wrong. This is a great story and all, don't get me wrong, but it seems to be lacking quite a bit of proof. In both of your arguments you both admit it yourselves that this is just a theory and is currently under research. To me this sound like they are just looking to make up another story for the holes in evolution, but I'm willing to forget about my opinion for the moment. Like I've said in a few of my other arguments on topics such as this, evolutionist seem to repeatedly tear apart creationist because "they have no evidence." To me, all I see in these two arguments is a lack of evidence. The door seems to swing both ways in the evidence battle.
This is a great story and all, don't get me wrong, but it seems to be lacking quite a bit of proof. In both of your arguments you both admit it yourselves that this is just a theory and is currently under research.
There are subtle bits of proof that stare you in the face until you know how to see them. For example, the ribosomes in our cells are a type of nucleic acid enzyme, and this proves that we don't need the complex genetic machinery to replicate genetic material, a ribozyme will do this on its own.
We see protobionts, real-life pre-cells that self-replicate in the lab. These allow us to infer what an early cell would be like.
We look into our cells and note mitochondria, which are almost entirely like bacteria. Why should we have separate genomes within our bodies? Each organism only needs one genome, but we have two, and plants can have more than three. The extra genomes are the same type as bacterial genomes, yet we are eukaryotes, a totally different type of life form. Why should we have this unless early on animal cells formed relationships with intracellular bacteria.
In laboratory conditions we can simulate early earth and create organic compounds, the types that make up present life.
To me this sound like they are just looking to make up another story for the holes in evolution, but I'm willing to forget about my opinion for the moment.
This is called intellectual integrity. An academic or scientist will tell you the flaws and strengths in their research. We believe the evidence speaks for itself and doesn't need all the hand waving and begging that accompanies unscrupulous people like lawyers.
evolutionist seem to repeatedly tear apart creationist because "they have no evidence."
It's not that creationists have insufficient evidence. Creationists have NO evidence. It's unbelievable but this entire "debate" is between a group of experts and fans of experts and poker-faces bluffing their victory despite having nothing, and their sincere followers.
Therefore scientists and sceptics become angry at them because the creationists will without fail misrepresent evidence, change the subject, appeal to emotions and vanity, and so on, just to hold ground.
To me, all I see in these two arguments is a lack of evidence. The door seems to swing both ways in the evidence battle.
I interpret you as being sincere in your grievances so I will give you, sincerely, a pearl of wisdom for discerning who has true versus false evidence. Whenever you watch a debate, look for the people or parties that appeal to your gut feeling, what you hope to be true. This indicates a lack of evidence. Look for arguments that appeal to your pride, your vanity, or your fear. This indicates a weak position. Look for arguments that base a large portion of their support on quotations, especially scientific quotations, and especially if those scientists or academics come from a group that you believe to be typically against the position that the person making the argument supports. This usually indicates deception. Ask yourself if each premise and following assertion along the way to the grand conclusion is supported by evidence from a reputable source, like primary literature, and ask if there were enough of these along the way. This helps to determine if you are being sold a conclusion that doesn't follow the evidence. Finally, temper your ego so that you can admit being wrong. So many con games and pseudo-sciences work because no one allows themselves to admit that they made a mistake in trusting or supporting it.
A true argument is the inverse of the above. Every statement or general premise will be supported by evidence, and what is said will not go much further than what the evidence allows. The evidence will typically be from an eminent expert in the field, but it's considered best when the evidence comes from the primary literature. You know these as technical journals, the ones that are filled with jargon and are intended for experts to read. For example, National Geographic isn't a very good source, but Nature and PNAS are. Appeals to your emotions are typically avoided, and if they are used in those rare cases, they don't serve as the primary support of the argument, instead they may serve as a way to help make a hard decision between more than one choice, or they may be purely rhetorical, or serve as commentary.
"mitochondria, which are almost entirely like bacteria"
You seem to be quite confused in what you consider a mitochondria. A mitochondria is an organelle found in most eukaryotic cells that generate most of the cell's energy, and there can be several thousand in one cell just depending on the cell type. Bacterium, on the other hand is a unicellular, prokaryote, microorganism. There is no possible relation between the two. A mitochondria is one of thousand of organelles found in a cell used to produce energy and a bacterium is a cell in whole. A bacterium is a living organism while a mitochondria is nonliving. So the statement that mitochondria is almost entirely like a bacterium is a completely false statement.
You also state that creationist have no evidence. I would just like you to check out one of my arguments in which you are involved in for evidence.
You seem to be quite confused in what you consider a mitochondria. A mitochondria is an organelle found in most eukaryotic cells that generate most of the cell's energy, and there can be several thousand in one cell just depending on the cell type.
I never said that mitochondria were literally bacteria, I said they were very much like bacteria. I know the differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
To clarify, mitochondria have a separate, prokaryote-like genome (circular rather than a chromosome). Their genetic code is related to proteobacteria rather than eukarya. Look into endosymbiont theory.
You also state that creationist have no evidence. I would just like you to check out one of my arguments in which you are involved in for evidence.
I still hold that position. To play devil's advocate, having evidence that Israelites were freed by Egyptians is not evidence that the earth was created by the biblical god.
It's just that there are plenty of theories. Abiogenesis is one way of figuring out how life began. There was that Millikin's experiment that I posted that provided a fair amount of CONCRETE evidence. It is not, however, a theory of evolution. Evolution is the changing of currently existing life, not the creation of life. Therefore it is not just making "up another story for the holes in evolution", since it is not evolution. By saying that something is currently under research, we do not assign it under 100% validity in every scenario. Creationists, while not "researching" any type of historical or scientific evidence for their claims, still assign their belief 100% validity. I would trust a claim with a partial basis more than a claim with no basis.
You say that creationist are not researching any type of historic or scientific evidence for their claims. This statement is completely and obviously wrong. In another argument in this debate I gave four links presenting historical evidence and I would be more than happy to give them to you if you are unable to find them. As for scientific evidence, I think I already refuted an attack like this but I will present it again if you would like.
I will try to make this abundantly clear, the "evidence" for Noah's ark is not reputable. The "evidence" for creationist ideology is not reputable. Give me statistical, hard data to work with. Please present your "evidence".
wow, so viruses have contributed to our DNA; I never heard that before and its quite remarkable; cool :) thanks for sharing.
You're welcome.
apparently they have to do with pregnancy as well. i wonder if viruses like the common cold evolved mostly independently then or came about as a evolution of a smaller biological system with in a organism later mutating into the cold virus.
My understanding is that what we understand about life leads to the hypothesis that viruses came about as pieces of DNA and RNA from cells and, for whatever reason, were not broken down by the cellular enzymes before leaving the membrane and flowing into other cells, and becoming replicated by the enzymes of that cell. Nature would select towards those bits of DNA and RNA which could best survive outside a cell, and could replicate most. Hence the eventual protein coatings and so on.
On the other hand, cells evolving into viruses is unlikely because although both can have membranes and protein coats, viruses are tiny snippets of genetic material, and have no metabolism. Also I think we would see intermediates between viruses and cells if that were the case, something like a cell lacking almost all organelles, or a virus with a golgi complex.
I suggest Ken Miller's "The God of Darwin", along with a basic college level biology course. If you study genetics, and DNA transcription and translation, and if you understand what telomeric DNA's function is, and then you discover that we have one less chromosome than the great apes, and that we have telomeric DNA at the center of the 2nd human chromosome you might have to rethink your world view.
Evolution is not disputed by scientists, people who study the matter for a living. The only people I see who dispute evolution are those who feel it contradicts their religious belief, most of whom barely understand the theory they are arguing against. If you truly attempt to understand Evolutionary theory, the more it will begin to make sense.
Animal breeders have been using the principals of evolution, to make bigger, stronger, faster animals for thousands of years. 8,000 years ago horses were smaller and could barely support the weight of a person, but breeders have made horses much bigger and stronger.
I can tell just by the title of this debate, that the author has already made up his mind and any attempt to convince him otherwise is a big waste of time.
A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.
Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.
So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense
Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.
I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.
I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.
Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.
Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.
Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.
Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.
There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!
Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.
Its a religion of idiots.
Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.
Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.
Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.
Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.
And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.
Ok... I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in another thread on the subject then.
====================
1. Endogenous retroviral insertions are the genetic fingerprints of past retroviral infections. The virus splices itself into a random point in the host DNA and then whenever that DNA replicates it replicates the virus as well.
Genetic analysis of primate genomes has shown a clear inheritance pattern of such insertions across all primate species. In EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE on the genome. The odds of this happening by chance are literally incalculable. Evolution is the only possible way it could have happened and it is considered ironclad evidence of common descent.
2. Most mammals are able to synthesise ascorbic acid, a.k.a. vitamin C. Primates are not. The gene responsible for ascorbic acid synthesis is called the GULO gene Evolution predicted that since primates shared common ancestry with other mammals and deletions of entire genes from a chromosome almost never happens there were very high odds that we would find a de-activated GULO pseudogene in primates in exactly the same place the functional gene exists in other mammals.
Looked for it, found it. It had been de-activated by a frame shift mutation right around the time primates branched off from the rest of the mammals and the mutation was passed down to all subsequent primate species. There is NO explanation for that other than evolution, and it is considered ironclad evidence of common descent.
3. The branching process of genetic reproduction and inheritance produces a distinctive signature called a nested hierarchy, where any changes to the genetic code at any point in time propogate only "downstream" from the point at which they are introduced by having them passed on to offspring during reproduction. ALL life on earth falls into this nested hierarchical pattern, as does all of the fossil record. no other proposed explanation accounts for this pattern.
4. Phylogenetics is the mathematical analysis of the genetic code of different organisms to determine ancestry. It's how paternity tests work. It's ridiculously accurate. Every test we've performed matches up with how the fossil record tells us life devellopped over time and establishes that evolutionary predictions about common ancestry are correct.
5. Fossil sequences map out clear transitions over time from one form to another all through history.
6. The geographic distribution of species overlays the nested hierachical organization of traits among them, and matches with the fossil record showing how the species in the different areas of the world developped into their current forms over time.
Do I really need to continue? Anyone who denies evolution has NO IDEA what they're talking about. NONE.
If your belief is that evolution isn't real... no, I'm not calling you stupid for your beliefs.
I'm just calling you completely ignorant of the reality of the situation. That's completely different from stupid. They can often overlap of course, but not always. I am, for example, largely ignorant of a lot of the principles behind Sharia law... doesn't make me stupid. I've just never cared to read up on the subject.
Of course, knowing that I ALSO don't go bursting around the internet declaring that I know more about it then the experts in the field... THAT would be stupid.
No one is calling you stupid, we are just saying you are wrong for your delusional beliefs. Delusion: strong belief in something despite the facts against it. It is much like a person believing in the tooth fairy. Anyone that's not a child would say without a doubt that the tooth fairy is not real. The whole magical aspect of it is completely unreasonable, and this is the same for Christianity. A magical God that creates everything and exists outside yet inside of reality. It is just as phony as the tooth fairy, and Christians must be delusional to continue to believe it.
