Even if it wasn't using this statement as any sort of evidence against evolution is just an argument from authority, a fallacy. If they were serious I say more power to them in trying.
Some things that could do this. -A species in one linage producing a species from another linage. Such as a dog giving birth to a cat. -The existence of a true chimera, that is, an organism that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as a mermaid, crockoduck or centaur) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together -A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating. -A complex organ for which no simpler versions ever existed. -Different biochemistry (such as different base nucleotides) than the rest of the biosystem. A lifeform which evolved in a highly isolated environment (such as an extra-terrestrial lifeform) might meet this criterion without violating evolution. But in our biosystem, every organism evolved from the same nucleic acids that were found in the first life form, so we all share those acids in our biochemical makeup.
Note: some of the things that would disprove evolution is what creationists claim is what evolution states.
Thank you guys for flaming me to hell. I was simply asking whether or not you thought that they could, in some possible way, be serious. It wasn't meant to piss anyone off.
Thank you guys for flaming me to hell. I was simply asking whether or not you thought that they could, in some possible way, be serious. It wasn't meant to piss anyone off.
Theories by nature have to be falsifiable. This quality not only allows us to weed out false information but also allows us to improve the theory. So it is possible, though not very probable. There is a lot of supporting evidence to overcome.
so you actually believe that we came from fish? if so then where did the fish come from? and where did that come from? it's a dead end question that you guys cannot answer, seriously, you guys might need to learn some common sense
Fish likely evolved from Pikaia gracilens or a species like it. Which evolved from a common ancestor to the worm, which had a common ancestry with jellyfish and sponges (not the square pants wearing kind), which evolved from Eukaryotes, which pretty much takes us back to start. At the start we are dealing with abiogenesis where through a process of chemical reactions allowed for self replicating molecules to form.
so you actually believe that we came from fish? if so then where did the fish come from? and where did that come from? it's a dead end question that you guys cannot answer, seriously, you guys might need to learn some common sense
Mage basically summed it up. But you seem to believe we came from two humans? Now tell me, how did two humans make 6 billion multicultural humans? Can you answer that?
[quote]Mage basically summed it up. But you seem to believe we came from two humans? Now tell me, how did two humans make 6 billion multicultural humans? Can you answer that?
Well, evolution makes perfect sense, as it is explainable. The idea of creationism makes no sense (in my mind). How could our race suddenly "appear"? We started out as cells in water, not as fully fledged Homo Sapiens.
Do a lot of the things that creationists claim evolution supports. For example, a dog giving birth to a non-dog, finding a chimera of two modern species in the fossil record such as a crocoduck.
