Well, what 'facts' would you consider persuasive? What evidence would convince you that all life on Earth shares ancestry?
Dear Pistike,
I think explaining the mechanism of the evolution would be helpful. Of course this discussion should be inevitably made on an amateur level. You know that the Ph.D.s and Prof.s on genetics etc. will not discuss the matter here. But, the articles in, for example, NATURE, NEW SCIENTIST etc. are there for everyone, because even I could understand the conclusions.
So, I don't understand it, on my basic level, how and why the evolution could have made such thing as the human brain, for example. It is the most complicated thing in the Universe, as you surely know. You may want to GOOGLE for an interesting article on it:
NATURE NEWS, 11 Feb 2009, DARWIN 200: The Other Strand.
The culture is being made responsible for the things obviously working contrary to the natural selection ( a human is in no way fittier in the savage world than his "relatives" - apes. You may want to try to spent an hour naked in the forest to check it out. So, culture , in all its forms, have helped us to survive ). It surely makes sense; but the human, as such, must have been already there. WE NEEDED OUR BRAIN ALREADY IN PLACE TO CREATE THE CULTURE. WE NEEDED IT FIRST ,TO GET NAKED TO COME TO AN IDEA OF MAKING CLOTHES FOR US. And and and.....
Can you solve this prob for me?
For a microevolution and species - please take a look on the evolutionary tree. Once again, maybe I sound like an amateur. But then please explain me the following thing - you will find there, for example , an amphibia depicted as a FROG - an animal known to everyone, and a reptile depicted as a LIZARD on the next level ( or on the next stage ). With an arrow between them. Well, what is in this arrow ? If you understand evolution as a constant process, you should normally have the constant row of the forms morphing in each other, why then depicting only the well known existing species and concealing the intermediates? And, what can be an intermediate between FROG and LIZARD, even hypothetically? Between FROG and FISH - even if you say these were not the modern frog and fish , of course. Still, changing an environment from water to air is a leap, not a smooth process anyway.Then, could it be at all possible to define smth. more or less stable - such as species, these frog and lizard on the tree - in the world of evolution?
For a mechanism - but it is true that all examples being brought out by evolutionists prove the microevolution! At least, I - HONESTLY - did never see the contrary. Say, the famous peppered moth - it is an adaptation, right? Which has its limits. As far I understand it, you will need a qulitatively new genetic information , if you want to get to the next level. Where should this info come from? You may want to look ( click on the first link on the signature of Corno Dolce, just scroll up here a bit ) how Dawkins - a prof. in biology - can not answer this simple question. And I am not even a Ph.D.
For the evolution tree - Pistike, I can't argue with geneticists and microbiologists. You may want to scroll up here once again and find a link to the article in NEW SCIENTIST - it was posted by Robert Newman initially, the reposted by me. The contents - most of mutants are being produced, of course, on bacterias - they reproduce very quickly, they don't have a complex bisexual scheme etc. So the most of the experimental data is being accumulated here, and the most of conclusions could be made - the evolution , at least on this level, does not look like a tree. It is , likely, a web, with no actual trend upwards. If so, is not it only logical to expect the very same tendency on the upper levels? Furthermore, if you find NO TREND UPWARDS, what sense does it generally make, to use the term "EVOLUTION"?
In general - Pistike, I am not saying that, if ET is wrong, then creationism is the only answer. Truth may lie somewhere in the middle, I suppose. ID was, in fact, a direct response to an incapability of evolutionists to explain the facts which are in flashy discrepancy with "the fittiest will survive" and still form our everyday life. IMHO, one must be simply fair and courageous enough sometimes to say, well , we were wrong with that, and then go forward with an open mind. Until it's done, I can not help to understand the portraits of Darwin as the icons of the materialistic cult, and the ET as another form of the Marxist phylosophy.
Sincerely,
Andrew