Well, where do comets come from then??? Why do we still have comets around if they only last 100,000 years or less? When did they form? Just 100,000 years ago and if so, how? Will there be anymore comets when these ones burn up? Or do Oort Clouds really exist?
Well, I don;t really know about comets. But I suspect that if scientists hypothesize an "Oort cloud", they probably have some very good reasons to do so. They're scientists afterall, not really into just making some stuff up without any evidence whatsoever.
Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong.
Since I have also no idea what they mean by that either, I can't help any further.
But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.
You're welcome mate. Keep in mind though that the wiki article, as extensive as it is, is still only a quick glance at all the evidence for common descent.
If you are ready to dive into the real scientific works that detail this evidence Google Scholar lists 3,010,000 articles concerning evolution, and 385,000 articles concerning Common Descent specifically.
I don't know if you're reply was to me or Dr. Adequate, but yes, the double standard boggles the mind sometimes.
Here's a tip, if you want to respond to a specific post, don't use the "general reply" button at the bottom left of the page, use the smaller "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you want to respond to. That makes it easier for everyone to follow, and it will send an e-mail to the writer of the post you are repsonding to that you responded to his post.
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions?
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa.
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates.
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey.
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution.
Life should fit into a nested hierarchy.
For more, see this list. And no, these are not all predictions for evolution, as you can see, Tiktaalik is not in that list, as is the nested hierarchy, yet I would list those as predictions for evolution.
quote:Dennis has got a first there, and could start an interesting meme.
Thats funny. Cause I just searched this:
"Evolution facts are found" in google...and got this:
No results found for "Evolution facts are found".
This is because if you put quotes on, google will only search for websites with that exact phrase. Just because I'm an ID, doesn't mean I don't know how google works. At least your search found one result.
ID =1 Evo =0
Well, when I search for "evolution is a fact", I get 4,920,000 hits. When I look for "ID is a fact", I get 633,000 hits. Guess you got some while to go. Or you could realise that this is a bogus argument.
and don't follow conspiracy theories...partly why I don't accept evolution. BAM.
So, you follow the conspiracy theory that evolution is a conspiracy? BAM BAM. Or something...
What evolutionary purpose does fingernails serve? Are they actually a mutation from claws?
The second question first. Yes, they evolved from reptilian claws. As to their purpose, they are thought to have developed to help critters get over and through small branches more quickly, which was useful to the small mammals we descended from. I guess we never lost them because there is no disadvantage to having them, and of course, I suspect they also serve some protective function to the nerves in our fingertips that help us with feeling.
Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
Do you agree that all modern domestic dogs are descended of wolfs? If so, does this mean that these ancestral wolfs had all the genetic information necessary to make all domestic dog breeds?
Ok. Would you mind explaining then why those ancestral wolves didn't have the dachshunds short legs? Since those are caused by a dominant allele, which means that if a creature has this allele, it will have short legs. Since the ancestor wolves didn't have those legs, they couldn't have all the genetic information needed to make all dogbreeds we see today. Therefore, this allele is an addition to the DNA.