ok, give me one example of what you consider as "evidence" for evolution. let's do it one by one. just start with one specific example and i respond.

How do you define evolution?

person123 wrote:ok, give me one example of what you consider as "evidence" for evolution. let's do it one by one. just start with one specific example and i respond.

I think you're missing my point. Why would anyone talk to you about evolution? By your own admission, you're not any kind of authority on the subject.

But what the hey, let's see what you come up with.

DNA evidence shows that humans share about 98-99% of DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Thus the three species share a common ancestor. It is believed the human lineage branched off from other apes about 5-7 million years ago in Africa.

Here's a phylogenetic tree illustration from the aforementioned biology textbook.



https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11128

Ok... I explain it in my book. You provided right now a specific data, an evidence. The fact that humans and apes share similar DNA. doesn't mean that the unique DNA that each species has could have evolved by random mutations and natural selection.
If you take Windows xp, Windows Vista and Windows 10, or Call of Duty 1,2,3, I'm pretty sure they share some amount of identical code. But except the identical code, there is some unique code that each program has that sets it apart from the rest.
So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.
The key is inside that 1-2% unique DNA that each species has, and for some reason the evolutionists are quiet about it. They don't talk about the unique DNA and could it have evolved by random mutations, they prefer to talk about the other 98-99%.

"How do you define evolution?"

That's the funny part. The evolutionists themselves don't have a unified theory, every one interprets it as he please... kind of like the bible. Well the bible at least has an official book.
My definition is that evolution has to demonstrate that it can produce complexity, including the unique DNA that sets humans and apes apart.
Now what happens is that people use the word "evolution" freely to explain every little thing, so they make it look like that it is a proven concept. Kind of like if humans could "evolve" blond hair and blue eyes, then that proves that fish can "evolve" into mammal. But it's not the same thing.

person123 wrote: So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.

Is your position that an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution (why, just for fun?), or you deny that it even appears that species evolved?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0/lines_01

you are missing my point... you can arrange all the human made products also in a similar tree, it doesn't mean that they have evolved by random processes. You have a bicycle, then a motorbike, a car, a truck, an airplane. You have iphone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. The fact that you can arrange it in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.
You have to prove that the actual evolution mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can really be the creative force behind it. Simply putting organisms in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved, just like putting a bycicle, a motorbike and a car in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.

As for "why an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution"... did he? Why apple made Iphone 1,2,3,4,etc? With each iphone looks like a slightly improved version of the previous one? Just for fun?
We don't know why the theoretical intelligent designer made the living organisms the way he did, but the way we make our products is not much different.

person123 wrote: As for "why an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution"... did he? Why apple made Iphone 1,2,3,4,etc? With each iphone looks like a slightly improved version of the previous one? Just for fun?
We don't know why the theoretical intelligent designer made the living organisms the way he did, but the way we make our products is not much different.

Exactly, the iPhone didn't start from scratch, and if it did it would be easily understandable. We can observe new products being created using components that we can explain. Did your intelligent designer just decide to use vestigial structures, and make it so that biogeography is consistent with evolution, to take just a few examples?

You think these "joker" scientists just created an arbitrary family tree and called it a day? Species are related for a reason. Your answer is that "you don't know why a designer would do it that way"?

Nothing wrong with being skeptical and not having all the answers, but did you literally just watch a few videos or have you a read a book on the subject?

person123 wrote:Ok... I explain it in my book. You provided right now a specific data, an evidence. The fact that humans and apes share similar DNA. doesn't mean that the unique DNA that each species has could have evolved by random mutations and natural selection.
If you take Windows xp, Windows Vista and Windows 10, or Call of Duty 1,2,3, I'm pretty sure they share some amount of identical code. But except the identical code, there is some unique code that each program has that sets it apart from the rest.
So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.
The key is inside that 1-2% unique DNA that each species has, and for some reason the evolutionists are quiet about it. They don't talk about the unique DNA and could it have evolved by random mutations, they prefer to talk about the other 98-99%.

So you do accept that the DNA matches prove relatedness. It seems you're 99% of the way toward accepting what biologists have been proving now for a century and a half. Why do you then hold back just because highly related organisms are also unique organisms? What sense does it make to suppose that there is common ancestry, shown by DNA analysis, yet then imply that myriad separate acts of creation had to account for the uniqueness of all the creatures to which we're related? I don't understand--a creator went so far with humans along a bonobo design, but then decided to throw in a crucial 2% difference to spin off a new animal?

It must be randomness that is the hangup. I think someone has already said that though mutations and variations apparently arise arising randomly due to imperfect copying of DNA, the testing of these variations within ecosystems is rigorous and severe; variations don't become incorporated into genotypes unless they confer survival value on the organism.

What are you doing right now is trying to use... i don't know how to call it... let's name it "indirect evidence" to support your evolution theory.
That means that you have a very simple job to do, and that job is providing a simulation or a model that will establish that those 1-2% of uniqe DNA could have been produced by random mutations. But you don't do that. Instead you are focusing on everything else, "Why this and why that".
For my understanding human DNA has 700 megabytes worth of data, that means 1-2% is equal to 7-14 megabytes. So if it is so easy and insignificant, please provide an explanation how this 7-14 megabytes could be produced by random mutations.
Imagine you are ordering two copies of Harry Potter book, that have 500 pages each. Now when it arrives, you discover that one of the copies has 5 pages of instructions for an alien spacecraft.
Now your both copies are 99% identical, they have identical 495 pages. Now instead of focusing on the 1% unique pages, how in the world did a blueprint for an advanced spacecraft get there, you start to focus on everything else:
-why those books 99% identical?
-why there are many Harry Potter books in the world?
-why there are different Harry Potter books?
-could the spacecraft blueprint therefore be a result of an accident during a copying process?
-in which countries do they sell more Harry Poter books? Europe or America? what is the average readers age? etc.

Now this is not the right way of thinking. If you claim that 1-2% of unique DNA is insignificant, so it is supposed to be very easy to scientists to provide evidence that it could be produced by random mutations. But they don't provide such thing (software simulation, mathematical models, lab experiments).


And as for "vestigiality", I think it's being exeggerated and misrepresented to be more dramatic than it really is. Just because our organism has minor features that no longer work, doesn't prove much. The theoretical intelligent designer doesn't want to be bothered by every little thing, he doesn't like to micromanage insignificant details. Just like you have on your computer some programs that you never use or that no longer run properly, you might not care enough in order to start looking for it and delete it. Same for "biogeogpaphy", it's just animals that are spreading over a territory.

"but did you literally just watch a few videos or have you a read a book on the subject"
i had never read a book on evolution... because there are no books on evolution. there are books that present data and then repeat the word evolution 10 times each page, "this is evolution", "this is evolution", "this is evolution", "this is evolution", like a hypnosis.

"It must be randomness that is the hangup. I think someone has already said that though mutations and variations apparently arise arising randomly due to imperfect copying of DNA, the testing of these variations within ecosystems is rigorous and severe; variations don't become incorporated into genotypes unless they confer survival value on the organism."
Well it's not "somebody said", it's what they all are saying, this is the main principle of evolution. But the thing is that it's a fantasy, just as a spaghetti monster or a unicorn. No lab experiment or computer software have never produced an evidence that random mutations can create an increase in complexity. So to say "random mutations and natural selection did it" is the same as believing in magic, it's the same as saying "god did it".