It is interesting the way you will argue against evolution using your take on the scientific evidence, yet, your final word is that it "goes against what the Bible says" when the biblical version of creation has no scientific support at all.
What is described in the Bible is the only way it could have happened.
And how can any reasonable, thinking person conclude that the Bible is the only way it could have happened?
More cut and paste nonsense from creationists websites?
1) Once again, SS and others like him fail to understand what they read. This is what Sanjuan and Elena really wrote (my emphasis) and in no way falsifies modern theory:
Whether systematic genetic interactions (epistasis) occur at the genomic scale remains a challenging topic in evolutionary biology. Epistasis should make a significant contribution to variation in complex traits and influence the evolution of genetic systems as sex, diploidy, dominance, or the contamination of genomes with deleterious mutations. We have collected data from widely different organisms and quantified epistasis in a common, per-generation scale. Simpler genomes, such as those of RNA viruses, display antagonistic epistasis (mutations have smaller effects together than expected); bacterial microorganisms do not apparently deviate from independent effects, whereas in multicellular eukaryotes, a transition toward synergistic epistasis occurs (mutations have larger effects together than expected). We propose that antagonistic epistasis might be a property of compact genomes with few nonpleiotropic biological functions, whereas in complex genomes, synergism might emerge from mutational robustness.
2) I am always surprised when people go to so much effort to produce garbage.
3) On several cases, I and others have shown that this is not so. Yet you keep repeating it in hopes of making it true. The beaks did not "evolve", rather the conditions made it so that one aspect of the population was over-represented. When conditions reversed the opposite happened. Industrial melanism is clearly explained. The moths always had a subsection that carried the dark pigmented gene, and as conditions changed the light moths suffered predation at greater rates to change the make up of the population, but the light colored gene is still in the population.
Learn the subject, before you start to criticize.
4) There is mountain of homonid bones, leading back to the earliest primates. You are just making up more lies.
5) Several animals have very clear and complete fossil evidence that shows the transition from the previoius form to their mondern form. This is also the case for some animals that came to a dead end and are now extinct.
6) Your numbers are made up, your math sucks as does you reasoning abilities.
Your question regarding the uniquely human ability to use tool is only another indication that you don't understand anything about evolution - and I doubt you can solve calculus equations. More than likely you are just parrotting or cut/paste what you seen in creationists sites like ICR and their like.
Why are we the only ones who get married, wear clothing? This is a philophical question and not related to evolution. Many cultures exist where nudity is not a source of shame or sexual expression. Because you follow your little mythology book like most of western society, you have body shame and associate nudity with sex which you think as dirty and shameful.
7) Humans and monkeys and mice and insects all share the same sets of genes. No they don't. They have some ancestral commonalities, but are also very different in function, loci and size. If you knew how to use BLAST you know this is another false statement.
8) Monkeys cannot breed with humans. If they could, we'd have to do some thinking on the subject of speciation and evolution
9) Not having all the answers does not make a mythology correct. You primitive belief in supernatual origins, answers nothing - in a clear case of hypocrisy you demand that scientists have all the answers yet you blindly accept a mythology that offers no rational answer
10) The bible is a collection of stories collected from 66 books, it is no different from any other book of fiction be it dianetics, torah, Koran or any other book or religion claiming to know what god wants.
SS, hate to break it to you but you for the most part also an Atheist. You, like a real atheist do not believe in any of the hundreds of Gods and Godesses that exist. The only difference is that a true atheist adds 1 more name to that list.
How do you logically justify dismissing the existence of other Gods over your god? You don't have to answer because you can't. It is not an objective decision, one borne of reason, facts, logic. No, instead it is born illogic or just intellectual laziness. There is absolutely no reason that one can logically choose to believe in one god over another.
Religion has 2 dominating factors - inherintance and, much like real estate location, location, location.
In Europe, NA, SA the main religion is christianity (in its many forms), and more than likely you just adopted the religion of your society or parents without question. An while christianity or any other religion can be good, when it inhibits intellectual growth (like in your case) or promotes ignorance (like you do) it is bad.
Corinthian may never moks you, but I do correct you. It amuses me that you constantly have difficulty understanding what you read, yet you insist in imposing your flawed interpretations upon us. I do not mock ignorance, but I will oppose willful, active ignorance like yours. If you are insistent in remaining ignorant, well, you have my pity, sympathies, and contempt
Do you even know what you write? Looks like you don't but let me quote you
10) Finally, the theory of evolution goes against what the Bible says. I believe the Bible is the beautiful truth. And I believe Adam and his descendants indeed lived to be near 1,000 years old….this makes sense in light of man’s degeneration. What is described in the Bible is the only way it could have happened
You are the one who keeps bringing religion and god to the table. I understand why you do so, it is because you don't have facts to back you up (there are none), so you have to rely on mythology.
Of course disproving can be difficult because the theory of evolution is more of a belief than anything.
And now that you've gone to all that effort, sport... Why not apply the same level of critical examination to your beliefs?
You just just slightly different words to repeat the same crap!
1) The article was calledNeo-darwinism falsified in the Lab" because it was written by some idiot that allows his religion to interfere with reasoned thinking. This is just a very stupid question as the author is free to title his article anyway he wants. The title does not make it true.
Its nice of you to cut/paste, but you should really apply most of your effort into understanding.
You lose
3) Evolutionists are not god hating, evolution does not even metion god. However even if we are to assume that this is so (unlikely since atheist comprise a small percentage of the population), it still does not invalidate Evolution.. That you think this only highlights your ignorance. From your writings I feel safe to conclude youare probably highly bigoted toward those that do not share your ethnic and religious background.
Lose again.
4) Visit a museum!
You lose again.
5) A number of examples have been provided to you several times. But you close your eyes to them in the hopes that it will go away. I have a niece that does the same thing when she is scared.
You lose.
6) More misinterpretation
You lose
7) As i said they have commonalities, they don't share the same set of genes. If you could use BLAST you'd know this. Commonalities, analogs and counterparts is not the same thing.
And populist articles are not proof.
YOu lose yet again!
-----------------------------------------
What's the matter? You could not come up with something for the last 2?
9) Not having all the answers does not make a mythology correct. You primitive belief in supernatual origins, answers nothing - in a clear case of hypocrisy you demand that scientists have all the answers yet you blindly accept a mythology that offers no rational answer
10) The bible is a collection of stories collected from 66 books, it is no different from any other book of fiction be it dianetics, torah, Koran or any other book or religion claiming to know what god wants.
Every religion has origin myths, none of them have any scientific value.
SS you put so much effort to produce nonsense. My sympathies.