You can use a comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. You don't even need fossils.
@spidergoat --
We sure don't, but it is a nice bit of icing on the cake isn't it?
Still persisting with your nonsense?No new DNA code was gained
What do you think evolution is?but the existing code was shuffled. That's not proof of evolution. It's merely proof that DNA replication is not perfect.
Because...?Actually, the examples you gave are no good.
One more time:
Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
This is what I meant by micro-evolution.
That's not proof of evolution.
It's merely proof that DNA replication is not perfect.
Actually, the examples you gave are no good.
In other words you're making up your own definitions. And also claiming. falsely, that you do understand what is meant by evolution.A reliable source (acceptable to you) would be a source which accepts evolution as fact. Evolutionists do not think DNA is important, since evolutionists do not think it is necessary to understand the language of DNA in order to prove evolution true. Evolutionists definition of evolution therefore can not mention too much about DNA. So obviously, you've sent me on an impossible mission.
So you're also clueless as to what ID claims too?The most evolutionists can say about DNA is that many species share the same sequences of DNA, which "suggests" evolution. But that's not true. It merely doesn't exclude evolution... nor does it exclude ID.
Couldn't this same study prove ID to be true as well?
So you're saying that a comparative study of modern species can prove evolution to be true?
Couldn't this same study prove ID to be true as well?
And therefore, isn't it true that it didn't really prove either one true?
Evolution would be in some way selecting for certain traits and these traits are carried in the DNA of that species. So the total DNA may not change but the coding will change over time.Still persisting with your nonsense?
Please link to a reliable source that states evolution is a "gaining of DNA code".
What do you think evolution is?
Because...?
I think you can't have evolution without DNA change.
And you don't think these chemical influences are controlled by genes?@Rob --
Sure you can. If the activation of certain genes is pushed earlier or later by any number of influences this can have a drastic effect on evolution, to the point where genes may just stop coding all together which would have a profound effect on the phenotype of the species in question. This isn't a DNA change, it's a change in the chemicals which are responsible for the activation of the genes in question.
Just take a look at the axolotl whose neoteny is almost certainly a result of this. The fact that many species in the same family are either entirely neotenic or have neotenic populations is strong evidence of this.
The problem with "gaining of DNA code" as a definition for evolution is that it can be caused by losing or changing of genes as well. This isn't "gaining of DNA code" but it does provide material for natural selection, which is the primary driver of evolution, to work with.
And you don't think these chemical influences are controlled by genes?
@Arioch - no I wouldn't do that. I might have not read the whole thread but came in late and missed it.However, I have to ask, are you just arguing to argue, or do you actually accept Matthew's definition(which has already been shredded)?
Evolutionists do not think DNA is important, since evolutionists do not think it is necessary to understand the language of DNA in order to prove evolution true.
Evolutionists definition of evolution therefore can not mention too much about DNA. So obviously, you've sent me on an impossible mission.
The most evolutionists can say about DNA is that many species share the same sequences of DNA, which "suggests" evolution.
Are you saying this is a circular argument?It is worth pointing out that there are no molecular clocks without the fossil record. The only means of calibrating the molecular clock is by reference to the chronologic placement of fossils in the stratigraphic record.