booboocruise:
What a "common creator" would not be responsible for?
Don't you ever wonder about such things?
And I DON'T enjoy conversations with sleepwalkers.
Well, the DNA similarities are just that: similarities.
Are you maintaining that sequence similarities are pure coincidence or something?
Why is one able to construct family trees of organisms from genes? And why do they often agree very well with the family trees constructed with the help of macroscopic features?
By the way, if evolution is a FACT, why is there no posted evidence for it?
Check the literature on evolutionary biology, booboocruise. I can't do everything for you; I don't want to have to turn this posting into a whole Evolution 101 course.
G. K. Chesterton said, and I quote: "The evolutionists seem to know everything there is to know about the missing links, except the fact that they're missing..." How true.
And what makes Mr. Chesterton so smart?
Geologic column: This was 'made up' by Charles Lyell in 1830, contains many polystrate fossils, and is inconclusive at best.
It was NOT made up by Mr. Lyell -- it was the result of the researches of the likes of "Strata" Smith some years before.
And polystrate fossils are NOT a disaster for stratigraphy; they are not even very common.
(not to mention, 80% of the world's geological sites do not contain rocks in 'proper order' to be used as real evidence for the strata ages).
Evidence for that: {}
There are places with out-of-order strata, but the cause of the mis-ordering can always be found -- usually some earthquake fault.
And the inferred order is abundantly confirmed by radioisotope dating.
Bone structure: Just because a human and a whale both have appendages with bones named "radius, ulna, humerus, etc." does not prove evolutionst--it just proves that people gave the same names to the fin-bones of a whale that they gave to the arm-bones of a human. Besides, the bones of a whale's fin were developed on DIFFERENT parts of the chromosome, which actually proves that it is unsufficient evidence.
Actually, the names are assigned for a good reason, because one can do bone-to-bone matches between different species' skeletons. It's fairly obvious among the more closely-related species -- most mammals have only 7 neck vertebrae, with giraffes having 7 long ones.
Embryology: Mayr used Haeckel's drawings of 1870, comparing the similarity in the early stages of the embryo in different animals. Haeckel was brought on trial in the 1870's and he confessed that the drawins were fraudulant. In fact, when compared to real photographs, the drawings are obvious pro-evolution propaganda.
Except that Haeckel was never tried for anything, and except that the similar appearances are often VERY apparent in photographs. I had recently checked on a paper comparing Hox-gene expression in mice and chicken embryos -- and those embryos looked remarkably similar. Also, the same Hox genes marked out the various backbone zones -- neck, thoracic, lumbar, pelvic, and tail.
Biogeography: That just proves that similar animals live in different parts of the world.
Think dispersal. How could the animals and plants get there? Why do many oceanic islands have big flightless birds? And why do some oceanic islands have giant turtles, while no oceanic islands have giant rats?
Why did Australia have kangaroos but no rabbits? Why does Australia have wombats but no woodchucks? Etc.
Although interesting, I see no evidence that that proves we evolved from bacterio 3.6 billion years ago.
So what? There are other lines of evidence besides biogeography.
Molecular analysis: Actually, bacteria are quite complex. ...
So what?
Why not look at molecular phylogenies -- family trees -- some time?
Do HONESTLY think that that just happened by chance.
Not by pure chance, but from abiogenesis processes that produced an "RNA world" or something similar, which then evolved into the first bacteria.
Of course, for all we know, extraterrestrial visitors or time travelers or elves could have seeded the Earth long ago, but where's the positive evidence?
If you have hard, irrefutable evidence that the Bible is lying please let me know, (AND CITE YOUR SOURCES SO I CAN LOOK IT UP ON MY OWN).
If you care about that question, check out
this Biblical Errancy page.