Evolutionists are Dumb

[oBWhat]

Why i think evolutionists are pretty dumb:

Evolutionist Point 1: Humans Evolved from Monkeys....

"If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"




You would also need to evolve a male and a female at the same time to continue to propagate the new monkey "species"... lol



Next:
Evolutionist Point 2: Humans share 98% or more DNA with Monkeys....


"Just because we share 98% of SOME of our DNA with monkeys this does not make Monkeys our cousins"

"We also share about 50% of SOME of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."


Some really telling quotes:

While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).




Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7).

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it?


These same evolutionists dont even mention "Junk DNA" or non-coding DNA which is a bigger chunk of our genome than coding areas! These areas have been found to be very important for human life.

some interesting readings:
Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

I do believe in some evolution however the monkey theory has some really funny theories....

[admin]

Hello,
I think those are valid points however I think the best one against Evolutionists is the posted by this video here:

You Tube

However they make several a few mistakes themselves...

As Darwin said:
"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur." Darwin 1859 [1872] p.127 However, evolutionary innovations came later to Darwinists (1990 Cracraft).

Also for the origin of life to be true to evolution, there must be transition states in the fossil record:

Darwin "..innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

However against Creationists, there is currently no "seed" hypothesis evidence even the meteorite or intelligent design one is missing a lot of data so this debate will never end.... lol

I wouldnt say they are dumb please be civil.

[danfive]

oBwhat that is the craziest garble of crap I've seen from anyone trying to argue with the theory of evolution.

Evolutionist point 1, point 2----WTF? Try googling theory of evolution instead of evolutionist-creationist point-counterpoint.

And the quote mining,

Quote mining is the practice of compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech.[1]

The term is pejorative. "Quote miners" are often accused of contextomy and misquotation, in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position. Material that ostensibly bolsters this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured.

[danfive]

And that video purporting to debunk evolution by the diversionary route of arguing against abiogenesis. Hmmm, I didn't learn any theory of abiogenesis in the college of science, but I did hear about the theory of evolution.

Presenting the non-existent theory of abiogenesis is as cheap a tactic as teaching creationism alongside of evolution in science classroooms. Why? because its not a theory. (there are some models for prebiotic systems etc, but models aren't theories, though they are testable by the scientific method....what!!! prebiotic system models produce data that support a hypothesis and doesn't support a null hypothesis---that's just science mumbo jumbo double talk, not fair!, we didn't go over that in Sunday school )

Furthermore, if its not painfully clear, theory of evolution deals with how a living organism can evolve, "Evolutionism" didn't cover that either in college, Why? because its an ISM.

But for Christ's sake let's win an argument by asking, how do inanimate objects come into being alive?
Because we need to generalize the matter in order to argue against it. Science is too constrictive for lively debate.

I do believe in some evolution however the monkey theory has some really funny theories....

The video series I linked to (Why do people laugh at creationists) has this topic in it, microevolution and macroevolution. Check it out.

[kevin_a]

The problem is fanatics.

Why do evolution and creation have to be separate?

Evolutionists ignore the spiritual and creationists ignore the scientific - making each mad at the other.

Creationist can resolve the issue if they get past the old vs young earth theories. They accept carbon dating when is supports biblical timelines and then deny it when it doesn't. You can't just pick and choose the stuff you want to believe - that is ignorant. Evolution is NOT a competing religion... just a natural process and a force of God's continued involvement his creation. C'mon... MUTATION HAPPENS and enough mutations can lead to new species. It's logical not mystical. Besides, who ever said that that God could not still be involved in the creation of Earth and life? If God created all life on Earth, why can't he chose to continue to create life using genetic mutation as the method to so?

Evolutionist just need to be open to the fact that there are some things might not be explained by science. The seemingly random luck molecular collissions that caused the creation of the first RNA enzyme in the primordial ooze could all be part of the master plan.

Besides, there is more in life to worry about than who is right or wrong on this mess. Instead of spending the energy and money debating each other, do something to actually help the planet.

[agador]

The problem is there is no dichotomy creationism is not science. It cannot be given the time or consideration because it is not subject to falsification. ToE on the other hand has evidence from many independent areas of scientific investigation. In my opinion it is the most cohesive, unifying and elegant theory in the biological sciences. It is supported by a massive body of evidence in several disciplines like biochemistry, genetics, physiology, cell biology, developmental biology, anatomy, ecology, microbiology and more recently psychology. Creationism defers to some cosmic authority without ever providing evidence to strengthen its hypothesis and as this thread started out (I'm hoping in a satirical sense) often tries to strengthen its argument by citing (often times through logical fallacy) inconsistencies with ToE.

[kevin_a]

Originally Posted by agador

The problem is there is no dichotomy creationism is not science. It cannot be given the time or consideration because it is not subject to falsification. ToE on the other hand has evidence from many independent areas of scientific investigation. In my opinion it is the most cohesive, unifying and elegant theory in the biological sciences. It is supported by a massive body of evidence in several disciplines like biochemistry, genetics, physiology, cell biology, developmental biology, anatomy, ecology, microbiology and more recently psychology. Creationism defers to some cosmic authority without ever providing evidence to strengthen its hypothesis and as this thread started out (I'm hoping in a satirical sense) often tries to strengthen its argument by citing (often times through logical fallacy) inconsistencies with ToE.

All very true. The problem is that the Creationist refuse to accept or even entertain the possibility that the forces of nature which drive evolution could indeed be the design of the "Cosmic Authority". The evolutionists refuse to believe their could be a "Cosmic Authority". Once you marry the two into a plausible explanation, accepting that some things can not be perfectly explained by science and that some things can/should not be literally derived from religious doctrine, you resolve the religious and scientific conflict and can be quite content to enjoy the wonders of life.