Textbooks at center of evolution debate

overlaid placemarker

underlaid placemarker

No fair - superimposing the "ape-like" Java Man skull cap over the "remarkably human" Turkana Boy skull like that! What other skullduggery will those evilooshunists think up next to fool impressionable minds???

That's like saying that a corvette inherited its fuel injection system from a pontiac firebird. They are extremely similar, but it only shows intelligent design.

If cars inherited. They don't. The point is, it's an inherited *error*; it doesn't need to be in our genome at all. Why is there a defective copy of a gene that works almost everywhere else?

The possible conclusions are the standard one (we and the apes got it from a common ancestor), that it occurred multiple times independently (very unlikely), or that the hypothesized designer 'copied' 'bad code' into several species, which *just happen* to be the ones that the standard theory already knew were related, and also that its quality control is lousy.

It gets better. Evidently some fruit bats also can't synthesize ascorbic acid. Evos predict that when their DNA is sequenced that the 'bug' will be different from the one found in people and apes, and also different from the one found in guinea pigs. ID-ists have no basis for any such prediction.

Would you care to make a friendly wager on how the sequencing turns out? Think it will be another evo prediction that's proven true?

"Why is there a defective copy of a gene that works almost everywhere else?"

Interesting question. Would one not need to identify the exact point in time when the defect happened?

The possible conclusions listed are interesting as well.

No tangible evidence exists ("skeletal remains") for "common ancestor" of apes and humans , yet that is a standard conclusion for the "WHY".

Evolutionist have faith in a "common ancestor" which they do not have the evidence to give proof it ever existed. That makes evolution a religion, and the only way their religion can continue is to "deny" the Creator.

Note how you put "possible conclusions" and "hypothesized designer 'copied' 'bad code' into several species..........". This makes the "WHY" an accusation that the designer placed the *error* in our genome.

You set the parameters of what you accept as possible conclusions for a question that you already think you have the answer. Not what I though science was about.

though = thought

The possible conclusions are the standard one (we and the apes got it from a common ancestor), that it occurred multiple times independently (very unlikely), or that the hypothesized designer 'copied' 'bad code' into several species, which *just happen* to be the ones that the standard theory already knew were related, and also that its quality control is lousy.

Actually the Bible explains this, but not in thesis/research format like many would like. First of all, it is very possible that "God" created similarities in us. Second, before the fall of man everything was perfect (genetic code twisted enough to allow for immortality, no disease, etc). After the fall of man, genetic makeup started breaking down. At one time in the Bible, it was okay for siblings to marry (forget your societal views for a moment), but then a couple thousand years after the fall of man God said "no more of this" (paraphrase). Why? Our genetic makeup had broken down enough that marrying a close relative can cause a combo of bad genes ending up in severe disabilities on the part of the offspring. Right there in the Bible. Read it. Sometimes you have to think beyond "thou shalt not commit adultry" to why you don't. A Christian is supposed to be obedient to the word of God, but we are human so we ask why, just like evolutionists. Why was it okay to intermarry and then it wasn't. We know why it is not okay today, besides the societal stigma.

It gets better. Evidently some fruit bats also can't synthesize ascorbic acid. Evos predict that when their DNA is sequenced that the 'bug' will be different from the one found in people and apes, and also different from the one found in guinea pigs. ID-ists have no basis for any such prediction. Would you care to make a friendly wager on how the sequencing turns out? Think it will be another evo prediction that's proven true?

I will wager this: regardless of how the bat's sequencing turns out, God is still real. Care to bet on that? You may not get your "evidence" until you die, but I will wager that.

If cars inherited. They don't.

And humans don't inherit anything from transitional forms.

Honest question. Anybody can answer this: how many full fossil finds are there for pre-sapien which evolutionists agree are transitional forms? Like with java man there is a skull cap, 2 teeth, and a thing bone (1 set). I know it may not have that simple of an answer, but what is the amount of sets just for human ancestry? Anyone know?

In reference to us trying to find our origins and how it all came about:

We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!

1 Corinthians 13:12