Evolution is a Religious Issue

I'm curious why you're moving on so soon. When you referred to the "nature and tone of these forums", what did you mean?--Percy

The actual position of Creationism is not that evolution has no evidence, but that the evidence is either wrong or misinterpreted. For example, evolutionists cite the fossil record of change over time in support of evolution. Creationists counter that this evidence is misinterpreted and that the fossils are actually just the remains of creatures killed in the flood.The difference between faith and science is that science has evidence for its theories, while religious beliefs are accepted on faith and do not require evidence. This thread's topic is true, evolution is very much a religious issue, but only because religious fundamentalists make it so by objecting on religious grounds.--Percy

Hi Sog,I noticed the warning from AdminNosy. It might have caught you by surprise, so maybe I can help you understand.EvC Forum is a science site, and discussion in the science forums (this is one them) is supposed to be based upon evidence and reasoned argumentation. Broad declarations with no supporting evidence or argumentation are acceptable as a starting point, but once the discussion is engaged then they must be followed with evidence and argumentation.I think AdminNosy may be concerned that your recent declarations (I'm paraphrasing since this is from memory) that "Evolution has no evidence" and "Evolution is not testable and therefore not science" may indicate a retreat from evidence-based discussion into unsupported assertions. As long as you proceed on to provide evidence and/or reasoned arguments for your position I'm sure he'll be happy.--Percy

I know Mammuthus has replied already, but maybe a different perspective would help. In sexual reproduction, offspring receive half their genes from one parent, and the other half from the other parent. In special creation this process must somehow be interrupted or interfered with, raising questions as to whether the offspring is still genetically related to the parents. Mammuthus was only asking you to consider this particular implication of your ideas about special creation. I have to concur with Mammuthus on this one. Your argument seems based more upon personal skepticism and a lack of familiarity with the techniques associated with the derivation of descent through genetic analysis than upon knowledge of the underlying science.--Percy

As AdminJar's post has hinted, I don't think this is going to sound familiar to anyone here, and the entire rest of your post is based upon it. It doesn't sound like anything I ever heard about.I'm racking my brain to come up with what you might be thinking of, and maybe I've got it. Before DNA analysis revealed that chimpanzees were closer relatives to us than gorillas, it was widely believed that gorillas were our closest living relative. But this was suspected only for reasons having more to do with morphology than anything else, and certainly had nothing to do with DNA analysis which didn't exist at the time. Uh, not sure why you're skeptical about this, but it shouldn't be hard to answer any questions you have. Descent occurs with modest genetic modification that accumulates, and the greater the number of descendent generations the greater the number of differences accumulate between two lines that originally formed a single population but have since gone their separate ways. The locations of similarities and differences in the genome are also important indicators.--Percy