Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, enough of this debate.

I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."

Run along.

There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.

What happened to "enough of this debate"?

Oh, I see. You wanted to say your piece and flounce off with the last word. And you're going to keep throwing in ONE MORE THING and "NOW we're done" until I let you have it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your "opposite opinion" was exactly the same thing I said, just prefaced with "I disagree".

"They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal."

Yeah, like I said, they decided there was an ancestor animal, and THEN they set about selecting data that supported the conclusion they'd made. At no point in time have you OR the people in your little study EVER said, "We found evidence, and concluded that there was an ancestor animal based on it".

"You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions." No, I'm taking a jab at pseudo-science that does exactly the opposite: reach a conclusion, THEN collect data that agrees with it . . . which you yourself have admitted is exactly what they did.

This is now the second time you've said, "Debate over", but we both know that's based on "THIS IS MY OPINION and now I'm leaving so you can't answer." We'll see whether or not you actually think the debate isn't worth your time, or if you're just trying to win through shutting down any debate at all.

 

[james bond]

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

Nice. You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .

The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?

The ToE has chemical evolution lol, Mr. Darkness in the Brain.

 

[Syriusly]

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

Nice. You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .

The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?

The ToE has chemical evolution lol, Mr. Darkness in the Brain.]

And again:
The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?

 

[Syriusly]

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, enough of this debate.

I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."

Run along.

There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.

What happened to "enough of this debate"?

Oh, I see. You wanted to say your piece and flounce off with the last word. And you're going to keep throwing in ONE MORE THING and "NOW we're done" until I let you have it.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your "opposite opinion" was exactly the same thing I said, just prefaced with "I disagree".

"They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal."

Yeah, like I said, they decided there was an ancestor animal, and THEN they set about selecting data that supported the conclusion they'd made. At no point in time have you OR the people in your little study EVER said, "We found evidence, and concluded that there was an ancestor animal based on it".

"You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions." No, I'm taking a jab at pseudo-science that does exactly the opposite: reach a conclusion, THEN collect data that agrees with it . . . which you yourself have admitted is exactly what they did.

This is now the second time you've said, "Debate over", but we both know that's based on "THIS IS MY OPINION and now I'm leaving so you can't answer." We'll see whether or not you actually think the debate isn't worth your time, or if you're just trying to win through shutting down any debate at all.

Actually science takes several approaches.

One of the precepts of science is coming up with a theory and then based upon that theory making a prediction of the outcome of experiments.

That of course is what has happened repeatedly in the study of Evolution.

Amazingly much of early evolutionary thought has been confirmed through DNA testing- studies of characteristics of animals- such as for example the very similar physiology of chimpanzees, and bonobos, and gorillas and man- leading to the theory that all of them were closely related biologically- and indeed when DNA testing was possible- DNA confirmed the very, very close relationship between these species.

 

[LittleNipper]

The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD. Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.

Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.

And you have all the evidence? Where is it?

I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?

 

[RWS]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

No, but we have the same old ancestor

Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?

Jewish is not only religion...
I born as Jewish..

"Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.

You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.

They usually don't have a choice.

I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.

And then the world would be fine...sans religion....

 

[LittleNipper]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

No, but we have the same old ancestor

Sorry Shazoom, you're a little behind. We have settled that part, i think... But welcome to the conversation!

Are you Jewish? And if so, why?

Jewish is not only religion...
I born as Jewish..

"Jewish" is not a race, it's a religion. Your parents are Jewish and because of that, you are Jewish as well.

You never had a choice. You were born into your religion and brainwashed from birth. Same with Christian and Muslim religions.

They usually don't have a choice.

I had a choice. because I never got brainwashed. And I studied many religions and their history. And my findings were that the big three were all corrupt and wrong. There is no need to believe in a religion if you are a righteous person. Just be a righteous person, and don't follow corruption.

And then the world would be fine...sans religion....

I have to disagree. I know people who where raised in a "Christian" home and believed that being born into a faith was all there was. The Lord doesn't care who your parents are! He wants a one on one. And I came to know the Lord when I was 12. I know Jews who felt the same way, even to the point that it was better to be a Jew and atheistic then become "Messianic" and have faith in GOD... Religion is not what true "Christianity " is all about. It's a relationship. Relationships for the most part are free; however, they do involve interaction and that is where prayer and research/study come into play.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?

6 Answers

Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views


It depends on what you mean by share.

What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?

Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.

Finally, to answer:

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

 

[indiajo]

Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?

.

Actually humans share around 50% of their genes with bananas.
Some, 100%, appearantly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

 

[LittleNipper]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".

 

[task0778]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist.

ME? I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes. Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.

Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be. It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake. I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.

 

[Syriusly]

The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD. Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.

Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.

And you have all the evidence? Where is it?

I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?

Hey I have no problem with you clinging to any belief that brings you comfort.

What does Stephan Hawking have now?

Exactly what you will have when you die.

 

[Syriusly]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist..

'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.

Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist.

ME? I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes. Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.

Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be. It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake. I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.

Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.

And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.

 

[task0778]

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist.

ME? I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes. Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.

Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be. It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake. I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.

Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.

And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.

I think the snake was reincarnated as Hillary Clinton. Some would say Donald J. Trump, but maybe we shouldn't go there in the Science and Technology forum. I know, I started it; my bad.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist.

ME? I believe every human being alive today or who was alive at any point in the past several million years has evolved from apes. Don't think they know precisely which kind of ape, but nonetheless to dismiss evolution as wrong is nonsense.

Which does not mean we aren't all God's creation, evolution may have been the tool from which we came to be. It just wasn't as it was depicted in the Bible as Adam and Eve and that damn snake. I heard the snake founded the democratic party after he got us kicked out of Eden.

Theories are not facts. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory.

And as far as the snake goes, I think it was reincarnated as Dick Cheney.

I think the snake was reincarnated as Hillary Clinton. Some would say Donald J. Trump, but maybe we shouldn't go there in the Science and Technology forum. I know, I started it; my bad.

Yeah, we should keep politics out of it. And I can agree about Hillary. I'll let it go at that.

 

[LittleNipper]

The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD. Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.

Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.

And you have all the evidence? Where is it?

I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

I'm a Christian and I don't have to have all the evidence. What I do have is a revelation from GOD called the Bible that makes total sense to me and provides the reason that sin exists! I have hope and an eternity to look forward to. What does Stephen Hawking have now?

Hey I have no problem with you clinging to any belief that brings you comfort.

What does Stephan Hawking have now?

Exactly what you will have when you die.

Hawking according to his own "beliefs" is nothing, has nothing, gains nothing, is worth nothing, and amounted to nothing. I do believe in GOD and see no logic that would make GOD an impossibility. I know Mr. Hawking now knows the truth; however, unless he had some moment when he called out to GOD through the Lord Jesus Christ ---- now is very sad indeed. Shame --- out of the wheelchair and into an eternal burning separation... For many this life is as close to heaven as they will get ---- sorry, that isn't very comforting...

 

[LittleNipper]

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist..

'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.

Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.

Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.

 

[task0778]

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Oh please....scientists consider evolution to be fact, period. No, you goobers are not presenting any actual challenge to the theory of evolution. Instead, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Not ALL scientists consider evolution to be a"fact".

Any real scientist who considers evolution to be a "fact" is not much of a scientist, for the simple truth that evolution is a theory. An unproven theory, although widely accepted as true but not a "fact". For that you would need proof, which does not exist..

'proof' is a mathematical concept- not a scientific concept.

Evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

Now let us compare that to any other theory that explains the diversity of life- I am not aware of a single alternative theory that has any evidence to support it- but I am open to examples.

Sorry, but mathematically there isn't enough time for the inert to turn into something living and then evolve into something very complex that then became diverse on its own. HOWEVER, there is needed only 6 days and a FLOOD to give us exactly what we now observe since ALMIGHTY GOD is the CREATOR of everything.

LOL, how would you know how much time it takes for life to happen? You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, of which you have exactly NONE.