On 6/19/2012 7:05 PM, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:16:01 AM UTC-4, Ric Trexell wrote:
[...]
That fish turned into a monkey. 8. That monkey turned into a
man. So although evolutionists say we are related to the
monkey, we are really related to a rock. If you have any
problem with this, according to evolutionists you are nuts. I
hope this clears up any misunderstanding as to what
evolutionist believe. This is what is taught in the public
education system and our colleges. Those that don't think we
were evolved from a rock are called creationists. So next time
you pick up a rock to throw in the lake or river, look it over
carefully because it might be your ancestor.

As hard as it is for you to accept, everything in this universe
comes from elements created by the fusion of hydrogen. But
hydrogen can result in many different elements under conditions
of enormous pressure. I choose to believe that this is the
process God used to create the universe. God's creation is what
we have in common with rocks, stars, and all life throughout the
universe. Only the truly ignorant can think they can explain
exactly how God created this Universe, but I think people with
intelligence can figure that the total story was not neatly laid
out in Genesis.

I pity someone whose faith requires them to abandon scientific
reasoning. They need to closely examine the foundations of such a
belief.




A creationist may not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but
he probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. "After
all," he might say, "obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with
her."

But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more
than 99.9 per cent. of his genes with her -- because, in addition to
the obvious one-half _direct_ ancestry, he shares almost _all_ of
his ancestry with her in common, because _both_ his parents share
almost identical common ancestry too.

_Common ancestry_ is the only rational explanation, and it is the
full explanation, for the near-total agreement between the
gene-patterns of father, mother, and child.

Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the
astonishingly high degree of common ancestry between humans and
other mammals.

The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about
92 per cent.

It is almost as if you had a 100-volume set of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very
small type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all -- and then
compared it to another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that
its first 92,000 pages were _absolutely identical_ to those in the
_Britannica_ (to say nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000
pages had a lot of similarities too).

Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have
just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of
encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be _that_ similar? I don't think
so. It would be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich,
Benny Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other --
or that both were derived from a common source.

Mice and men share so many -- almost all, in fact -- of our genes
because we share many, many common ancestors.

Common genes equals common ancestors.

The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of
how many common ancestors we share with them -- and that itself is a
measure of how long ago we diverged from them.

Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per
cent. of our genes in common with fruit flies -- 26 per cent. with
yeast -- and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat.

That is proof as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect
world that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors --
and wheat's ancestors -- _were the same species_.

For even in a case where "only" the first twenty volumes of the
encyclopedia -- 20,000 pages -- were word-for-word identical with
our _Britannica_, who would be so foolish as to say they had no
common source?



With all good wishes,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/