If evolution is not proven, why do we share 96% of our genetics with monkey?

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by 2XOHsurf

 

But we are much closer related to monkeys.. Half a chromosome away from a chimp, sounds like more than a few similarities to me. Until you have a better explanation for how we got here (with evidence to support it), then you have no choice but to accept the theory of evolution, otherwise your lying to yourself. So, when you solve the mystery of our origins, then perhaps you can refute scientific theory.

God made it obvious to all. Howver, a brain indoctrinated with the theory of evolution leads to a heart that rejects it's Creator, and this person cannot see the absurdity in the idea that man evolved from a monkey, cannot see a sense of humour in the design of a platypus, cannot sense the zero chance likelihood that even one species evolved from primordial ooze let alone thousands upon thousands of species, and cannot see that man is the only creature that is heads and shoulders above any others on Earth. The theory of evolution was given to remove God from the mind and heart of mankind, the biggest deception allowed by God to separate out the rebellious from the meek. Just as the days of Noah saw mankind rebel against their Creator, the end once again sees the same. The theory of evolution is the convenient excuse used by man to not to have to seek God, and it allows them to put their fingers in their ears and ignore God's command to REPENT from your wickedness before judgement falls. I should know, I was there. And I can also testify that He does provide the proof of Creation - it's a grand gift of God called mercy and faith.

Evolution as a process is a proven fact. There is no question about this whatsoever in the scientific community, not even up for debate. There would not be a scientific theory based on the process, if it was actually speculation. The process can be observed, measured, etc. Denying evolution is denying the entire scientific field of biology and is similar to denying the earth's revolutions around the sun. People need to start reading actual science books instead of relying on deceptive creationist websites for their info, when their sole purpose is to promote fundamentalism, which is bad and destructive to society.

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


Yes, humans are said (by some) to be created in God's image.
And yet we have over 4000 heritable defects.
Makes you wonder about just how smart it is to worship this guy.

The apes don't have such defects.
So just who is the greatest/highest creation?

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


Because he only created the first humans, he doesn't create each human that is born.

reply to post by Logmafia

But the only way the defects could occur then, if your saying he made the first humans flawless, is if the defects occurred through natural selection and genetic mutation-- so you must believe in evolution, and there is still a possibility that we came from monkeys.

reply to post by Jim Scott

Whenever you see evolution arguments based on DNA, throw them out. Nothing could have evolved from raw chemical soup into DNA, and for sure not humans. If all the matter in the entire Universe was amino acids, there is not enough matter to have the probability statistically to make DNA, and DNA is a small part of a cell made up of thousands of elements that inter-react to cause life to exist.

Thomas Cech would disagree with you.

RNA world

The supporting evidence is quite impressive.

It takes more faith to believe in the above than it does to believe that someone or something intelligent arranged the molecules needed for us to exist.

Absolutely not and to make such a statement is absurd. This data is supported by evidence by things based in observable reality. Not on "Well that's weird...God must have done that".

Evolution doesn't have to prove the absence of a Creator. It could explain how the creator made us.

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


Could there be a difference between evolution of all life and evolution within a species? Just because something starts out in pristine condition doesn't mean it will always be that way.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by Logmafia

 

If he is an efficient creator then why are there so many defects in his creations? Im just looking for some consistency..

We are pretty consistent... But like any replication process some information gets lost... Think photo-copying a photo-copy.. It begins to fade over time unless we add a fresh template.. That is why we have to stay away from family members when we reproduce..

As for your OP.. We are also 30% fungus... All the statistics prove is that we all are made of the same stuff... There is quite a difference in those percentages.. We go from fungus to space travel... From swinging through trees to Mozart.. The difference is bigger than the stats allow for..

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I believe in God, I also believe that God is responsible for evolution. Why not?

This is where we disagree.. Why not? I'll tell you why not, because the theory of evolution works without that assumption. Throwing a designer in the theory is not necessary, it just adds a bit of useless BS to the theory that only puts us one more step back from proving its truth.

Have you ever seriously considered that couldn't evolution just be the answer to how and not the answer to why?

I don't see why most people on this forum who don't believe in a higher power have to attack those who do believe in one. It's like the crusades but instead of Muslims vs Catholics it's Atheists vs Everyone on ATS who ascribes to a religion... I'm not saying that one side is innocent while the other isn't, but I've noticed on here that most of the "attacking" is done by the atheists calling the people who believe in a God (and I'm paraphrasing here) "idiots who believe in a bunch of 'useless BS' and their beliefs are somehow going to set back human progress".

Even though certain advances in human knowledge only recently "discovered" by human kind such as; the optimal length v width ratio of a large sea-faring vessel, or the idea of quarantining the sick, and the fact that the earth is round, just to name a few, these "advances" were described in the Bible & Torah thousands of years ago.

I won't argue the fact that the Catholic church and Papacy have contorted the messages contained within the Bible to how they want people to see it. But just because that has happened doesn't mean the whole idea should be scrapped, but it also should not be thought of as a word for word, exact reason as to how we got here. Like I said earlier: Maybe evolution is the 'How' and not the 'Why'. I mean do you really think a person living in 2000BC would really understand the theory of evolution or how the universe came to be as we understand it today? No, more than likely not.

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution as a process is a proven fact.

Humm? Is evolution a fact, or is de-evolution? Ooops! Evolution is merely a theory that has not been disproven. Instead of using double standards in the applications of qualifiers, apply them equally to all. By your standard, Creation and ID are facts as well.

humans share about 50% of their dna with a banana

its not a good argument on evolution, as the ill-educated could argue god created everything and that's why everthing shares a large share of our dna

But I have never known anyone not believe in evolution, so I don't really see the point in this thread

reply to post by Southern Guardian


And that 4% makes us different then anything else on this planet.

In my personal opinion I somewhat believe in evolution.
Think of it like different Cat species, there are quite a few different types.
Well would the same type of thing not be the same for "Humans" and all the "Monkeys" in the world. We are basically just another type of monkey, the most advanced species of monkey. Just as what were to be or was or even is... The reptiles. If it happened on this planet it would most likely happen on others, only this planets reptiles were destroyed. What could their dominant species eventually become....
With the power of color/skin change, chemical warfare, speed, etc at the suppressed stage that they are at on earth right now, who knows what types of reptiles could evolve.

the r complex in our brains is a head fxxk we must be reptile to then .pig skinned with the fish backbone and a bit of a mammal thrown in to .there was a tv programme when i was a kid called monkey who travelled with a fish a pig and a horse that changed into a dragon when it got angry a female monk called tripitaka pretending to be a male .i bet the script writers had a laugh with that one . man being natural has been compared to a tornado blowing through a scrap yard & assembling a working jumbo 747 were basically farm animals created to serve as slaves my 2cents

We share DNA with just about everything on this planet,including fruit.
Don't forget though that many beings on this planet have the same blueprint so are likely to have the same DNA whether they eveolved from eachother or were created that way.

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution as a process is a proven fact.

Humm? Is evolution a fact, or is de-evolution? Ooops! Evolution is merely a theory that has not been disproven. Instead of using double standards in the applications of qualifiers, apply them equally to all. By your standard, Creation and ID are facts as well.

Oops! Somebody hasn't read even the bare minimum about evolution, yet thinks they know more than a scientist about it. Creation and ID are guesses. Evolution is a fact, already explained it. Do some reading on the subject. A theory in science is a compilation of facts that explain HOW something works. If you can prove that genetic mutations don't happen or that natural selection is false, you MIGHT have a case, but alas that is not possible, because you can observe evolution in every single creature on earth.

Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution as a process is a proven fact. There is no question about this whatsoever in the scientific community, not even up for debate. There would not be a scientific theory based on the process, if it was actually speculation. The process can be observed, measured, etc. Denying evolution is denying the entire scientific field of biology and is similar to denying the earth's revolutions around the sun. People need to start reading actual science books instead of relying on deceptive creationist websites for their info, when their sole purpose is to promote fundamentalism, which is bad and destructive to society.

edit on 5-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

As far as I still remember its call the “Theory” of evolution. Theory’s aren’t facts. Its called a theory because there are LARGE, gaps in the 'Theory" There are no fossils to be found with minimal gradual changes. I have a hard time taking anything as fact unless there is 100% proof of it. If evolution was a fact wouldn’t it be ease to produce fossils of these ever so slightly changes going all the way to today?

If evolution was true, and I’m going to play devils advocate, and its based off millions of years of slight change, wouldn’t you be able to find Billions of different fossils proving this theory? Let’s take for instance at one point there were a million, lets call them pre-humans, a million years ago and it took a million years to get to the point where we are now. So roughly there would be 31,250 generations, each generation growing in numbers exponentially. That would lead you to the conclusions that you would find millions of fossils of each generation leading up to this point. Where are those generations of slight changes? Where are those billions of fossils.

Lets say only 1% of each generations fossils survived, still leaves you with a lot of fossils, where are they? These are questions I ask as should you.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
I don't see why most people on this forum who don't believe in a higher power have to attack those who do believe in one. It's like the crusades but instead of Muslims vs Catholics it's Atheists vs Everyone on ATS who ascribes to a religion... I'm not saying that one side is innocent while the other isn't, but I've noticed on here that most of the "attacking" is done by the atheists calling the people who believe in a God (and I'm paraphrasing here) "idiots who believe in a bunch of 'useless BS' and their beliefs are somehow going to set back human progress".

The reason people "attack" creationists, is because they constantly post lies about evolution and science in this section. If I see somebody misrepresenting science, I'm going to correct them. People just take it personally when somebody says, "there is no evidence of god". That's an honest, accurate statement. There is no evidence, it takes faith, which is why it becomes even more absurd when the people who believe their faith is absolute fact start talking about science, when they haven't even studied it or in a lot of cases get their information straight from creationist websites, rather than actual scientific studies and haven't done a smidgeon of reading on the basics. That is why they are ridiculed. Just read the top 10 threads in this section. I'm not making that up. Not only is that hypocritical, it's flat out dishonest.

I won't argue the fact that the Catholic church and Papacy have contorted the messages contained within the Bible to how they want people to see it. But just because that has happened doesn't mean the whole idea should be scrapped, but it also should not be thought of as a word for word, exact reason as to how we got here. Like I said earlier: Maybe evolution is the 'How' and not the 'Why'. I mean do you really think a person living in 2000BC would really understand the theory of evolution or how the universe came to be as we understand it today? No, more than likely not.

This is true, and exactly why most religions are so out of date. Instead of changing with the times, they still live in 2000+ years in the past.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
As far as I still remember its call the “Theory” of evolution. Theory’s aren’t facts. Its called a theory because there are LARGE, gaps in the 'Theory" There are no fossils to be found with minimal gradual changes. I have a hard time taking anything as fact unless there is 100% proof of it. If evolution was a fact wouldn’t it be ease to produce fossils of these ever so slightly changes going all the way to today?

No offense, but you fall right into the category of people I described in my post above. Thank you for perfectly demonstrating that. Why attack science, when your knowledge of it is THAT poor? Scientific theories are based ON FACTS. I'm so tired of having to repeat this over and over again. No, it's "just a theory". Gravity is just a theory as well, but I guarantee if you jump off a cliff you will go down.

If evolution was true, and I’m going to play devils advocate, and its based off millions of years of slight change, wouldn’t you be able to find Billions of different fossils proving this theory?
Let’s take for instance at one point there were a million, lets call them pre-humans, a million years ago and it took a million years to get to the point where we are now. So roughly there would be 31,250 generations, each generation growing in numbers exponentially. That would lead you to the conclusions that you would find millions of fossils of each generation leading up to this point. Where are those generations of slight changes? Where are those billions of fossils.

Again, this shows your lack of scientific knowledge. Every creature that dies does not become a fossil. This is a RARE occurrence only associated with special circumstances (way less than 1%), ESPECIALLY in Africa, in a highly competitive environment. Normally dead organism decompose or get devoured. And BTW, MILLIONS of fossils have been found, and dozens of hominid species from the past 2.5 million years have been found.

It's just the same ol' tireless argument from ignorance. "I don't understand science, so it must be god!!"