Where's your "credible evidence" for common ancestry?
Here ya go.
Atavisms:An atavism is produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates a feature that was deactivated through past mutations.
Back legs on a dolphin, which have bone structures of mammalian legs. Produced by a fossil-gene.
Teeth in a modern chicken. Produced by a fossil-gene.
Common ancestry makes sense of this, creationism doesn't.
Another atavism activated upon a mutation in a fossil-gene.
Back legs on a snake. Again, another atavism produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates something that was deactivated through past mutations.
Vestiges:
Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale. Left overs like this are common ALL throughout nature. I could give many more examples.
Vestigial hind leg of a python.
Small useless wings. They are a vestige. Many insects have wings they cannot use. What makes sense of this, creationism or evolution?
Again, those nice flightless wings of the cormorant that I explained in a past post.
Fossils:
Feathered dinosaurs. Remember, you will NEVER find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these in the fossil record (Jurassic). Look at the anatomy of the modern turkey, below.
Notice the epidepixteryx and archaeopteryx have teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.
Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two!
Scientists predicted that if evolution is true you should find the water to land transition in the Devonian. What did they find? Exactly that! Tiktaalik above. A clear transition from water to land. You DO NOT find modern frogs, etc., in the Devonian.
Oldest fossil is on the right, next the middle, next is the most recent. Look at the gradual shift of the blowhole on whales and their ancestors. Clearly transitions. And the you DO NOT find the older ones alive anymore, nor do you find the modern whale fossilized with them in the record.
Geographical Distribution of Species & Genetic Drift:Cormorant of Michigan:
Galapagos Flightless Cormorant:
Remember these? Let me restate myself, being some missed it...
The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!
When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.
The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.
Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.
You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.
Lemurs. Only found on Madagascar. What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?
Difference between tortoises on the Galapagos, drifting apart from island to island.
Notice the geographical distribution of these. These little guys can breed with each other county to county, but the northern most one (oregonesis) cannot breed with the most southern one (klauberi). Again, county to county they can breed up the spectrum, but the most southern and northern cannot. This shows speciation over the spectrum.
Endogenous Retroviruses:
ERV's invade the host cell and merge in the DNA of the host, thereby tricking the host into replicating the RNA information of the virus. These viruses leave a mark in the genome. We have, roughly, 22,000 genes. These can attack anywhere in the 22,000!
So, what if you compare the human and chimpanzee genome and find 1 identical placement side by side with the chimp's? Maybe it's a huge coincidence. But what about 2? That's like winning the lottery. But what about 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., etc... It becomes IMPOSSIBLE without COMMON ANCESTRY.
I haven't even went into DNA yet, which is one of the strongest evidences. I haven't went into Lenski's work. Or the
arguments from bad design, such as the
recurrent laryngeal nerve. I could go on and on and on with evidences throughout nature.
As the biologist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in all biology makes sense expect in the light of evolution." The world as we know it only makes sense in the light of evolution, NOT creationism. In relation to the real world the miracles of creationism just don't work.
But hey, some people still believe we walked with these 6,000 years ago. Lol...
Author
Topic: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll (Read 7575 times)
