Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

so how is it determined from a fossil that we evolved from what it belonged to?

I just checked on Frank Collins page and the number you claim is wrong. The essentiaql genome was 94% done by 2002 and the remaining swections (Motly telomeres and centromeres) have added another % since then. The centromeres and telomeres are zones withing DNA that lie in between captured zones and CAp these same zones . So, according to Collins, we are about 97% fully done. The remaining are epi and "meres" still to do. Are they important? I have no idea but please dont represent something that isnt correct.

You apparently did not understand what you read, because the excerpt from Google books not only describes remnants of life forms found in rocks from the Canadian shield, they have even provided pretty pictures of them. You see only what you want to see.

We know from geological evidence. Layers of rock older than a certain age (~2 billion years) contain mineral compounds that wouldn't have been stable in a high-oxygen atmosphere. Layers that are younger than this don't have them. The Index of Creationist Claims at talkorigins.org has links to the primary sources. (Because the site is down at the moment, I'm linking to the Google Cache's backup.)


I don't know what the empirical evidence is. Logically though, since anaerobic life forms exist, and since aerobic life forms can't exist in an atmosphere without oxygen, any life that existed before our oxygen rich atmosphere would have had to be anaerobic.

The premise of your question rests on outdated information. The human genome project published the complete sequence of the human genome back in 2001. The Chimpanzee genome project published a draft for a complete Chimpanzee genome in 2005.

The evidence from accumulated mutations derives from comparing the two genomes.

And Farmerman just told you, and I just pointed you to the publications, that the complete genome is already published. Your information is simply outdated.

I don't know what an evolutionist is, but evolutionary biologists don't say humans evolved from apes. They say humans are apes. And they're right.

I sped read the articles once, so please since you have more understanding of it, please point out which line in there can be used as evidence. All i see are assumptions and explanations but not proof that the original assumptions are true.

Hey thanks for clearing this up I concede. My facts were outdated.

They should be, but this dodge seems to be what my favorite New York Times comumnist calls a Zombie Idea. No matter how often you kill it with evidence, it keeps returning from the dead to eat people's brains.

No problem. That's what online forums are for.

Speed reading is, in my experience, a novel excuse for refusing to understand what one as read. On the second page of text from the page to which the link takes you (which is page 60 of the excerpted text), there is a description of the rock formations of the Canadian shield in which the remains of the biota have been found. Specifically, it lists the types of rock in which they were found. Degradation of isotopes in rocks tell us how long ago the rock was formed. Of course, you'd have to understand that before you would know that found biota remains in rock formations can be dated by that expedient. Forgive me for assuming that you know more about science than it now appears that you do.

Essentially, although you don't need a .pdf reader to see that page, you are looking at a .pdf-like document, so i am unable to highlight can copy text from it. But the location of the finds and description of the rock formations in which they were found are given in the text.

Of course, if you want to consider geological dating techniques to be assumptions (which would not surprise me), there would be no point in attempting to get you to understand. If your mind is closed, i certainly have no key to unlock it.

Is there any objection to someone calling it the Inspired Idea and that it returns to nurture people's brains.

Both are assertions of equal validity. Believing in one and not the other is a psychoanalytical confession. It's the New York Times revelation up against other revelations. The question begged of course is that given that the NYT is a for profit organisation what is the route from its revelation to its appearance in the balance sheet? The NYT would push the FSM if it thought it would double its profits.

Which one might expect if this is true--

Mythology may nurture people's brains, but one must understand they are objects of man's creation.

Oh that, i know about radioisotope dating ( potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc.).

I mentioned this in my first comment. radioisotope dating cannot be used the date rocks or anything because it is based on again, assumptions that the preconditions have been met for the sample being dated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Preconditions

These preconditions are unprovable. For example, the basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation.

If i gave you a rock sample how would you prove that this condition has been met before radioisotope dating the sample? There is no way to prove this so scientists assume before dating the rock that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product entered or left the material after its formation.

I know they take multiple rock samples from different locations to enhance precision, but even this is based on the assumption that these rocks were formed by the same event.

Show me a way to prove from a rock fossil that after its formations along time ago this condition was met and i will apologize to you and admit my ignorance gladly.

To use radioisotope dating one has to also assume that the rates of decay are consistent. This is unprovable because our life span is too short to observe this.

At this moment please feel free to bring up HALF LIFE.

Your wikipedia article does not support your contention. Read it again.

The link was to show you the preconditions i was referring to. And yes i read about closure temperature but that itself is based on assumptions.

I will believe in the given ages determined through this method if anyone can show me how it is not based on presumptions. It is very accurate, but based on assumptions which control factors that can alter the determined age by a lot of years.

So you say--but as i have pointed out, your source does not support your contention.

We should get FM to comment--as a working professional geologist, he can answer your objections much better than i.

I don't know who FM is but i will appreciate his/her expert input.