Originally posted by addygrace
Sounds ok, but......
1) You have to make a leap to get back to common ancestors.
1A) Common ancestors have never been seen or found.
1B) Because 1A is a true statement, we must give common ancestors the same treatment evolution modelers give God. We must throw it out with the rest
of the Dogma.
2) "junk" DNA is not useless to the animal with which it's in.
2A) Because 2 is a true statement, "junk" DNA can no longer, in and of itself, give credence to the evolution model.
1) How so? what kind of leap? We have a pretty complete fossil record, here are a few examples of complete cladograms where we have fossils showing
all of the distinct ancestors:
1A) common ancestors have absolutely been seen and found. This is the part that irritates me, the prevalence of the claim that "no transitional
fossils have ever been found" (which is about the same claim as "no common ancestors have ever been found. That claim is absolutely not true. See:
for a list of transitional fossils for vertebrae
1B)See the difference between the theory of evolution and god, is that evolution makes testable predictions, and is useful for increasing our
understanding of our world. No god has been defined in such a way that people still call it god and that it is testable.
2) Prove it. You can't make a claim like that and not back it up with anything. Monkeys have wings. See, I just made a statement, and backed it up
with nothing, and you don't believe me, as you shouldn't.
In fact, junk dna is a term in common usage that doesn't accurately represent the concept. Here's a good explanation with citations:
2A) 2 is not true, but even if it was, the evolutionary model is supported by much more evidence than junk dna. even if you could convincingly prove
that junk dna isn't junk, as you say, you do not automatically disprove evolution.
And, as a last note, even if you did somehow disprove evolution, you still don't prove god, you just prove that we currently don't know how life
came to be as it is.
I hope you find this and the link I've given interesting,