Evolution: Fact or Fiction

[danmoore80]

Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?'

[blike]

This sounds like your homework..

[VendingMenace]

in certain observed populations, geneotype frequencies have been observed to change over time.

Since the definition of evolution is the change in frequencies in genotypes over time, we can say that evolution has been observed in these species.


Now if you want to make the leap (a generally accepted one) that phenotype is greatly dependent on genotype, then in populations in which phenotype frequencies has been observed to fluctuate throughout time, one can assume that the genotype frequecies have as well. If you are willing to accept this, then bassically all forms of "life" have been obseved to evolve.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

evolution in action: www.darwinawards.com

[matter]

blike said in post #2 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32156#post32156):
This sounds like your homework..


lol

[fafalone]

We've seen fish evolve smaller (read through the news forum) and watched a brand new species of bird appear. We've analyzed chromosomes showing a Robertsonian translocation on chromosome number 2 present in humans that is not present in apes, deleting some parts and giving us one less chromosome.

A very simple proof of evolution is to take a group of bacteria, confer streptomycin resistance on a few, place them on a medium with streptomycin, and watch them all become true-breeding for streptomycin resistance very quickly.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Or just watch the flu virus change over the years.

[Radical Edward]

Endogenous retroviral sequences, atavisms, polyploidy, nylon digesting bacteria, meat-eating fruitfly, bread-eating-fruitfly, vancomycin resistance, chromosome merging of chimp's 2p and 2q to get human 2... lots more. what do you want?

[danmoore80]

"a Robertsonian translocation on chromosome number 2 present in humans that is not present in apes" First of all, are we assuming that we evolved from apes? I am looking for a example of macroevolution, not a microevolution. i.e. I'm looking for proof that the dog and the fish have a common ancestor.

[fafalone]

The translocation is a very very strong support that we and modern apes (chimps) do in fact have a common ancestor.

[Radical Edward]

well there is a whole wodge of evidence that we evolved from an early primate (we are apes btw)

Human Endogenous Retroviral sequences that are present in both humans and other primates, in a genotypical order that matches with other cladistic patterns.

Chromosome merging, and other chromosome mutations that match up with other cladistic patterns.

Evidence from transposons.

Evidence from dead genes, which have died in the same way (i.e the gene for vitamin C)

Large amounts of fossil evidence, showing the progression from early primates to homo sapiens sapiens.

[danmoore80]

Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That neanderthal-- do you believe someone almost 50 years ago without modern technology?

[Radical Edward]

so address all the molecular evidence then...

and yes we know about all the hoaxes. perhaps you would like to address the proper evidence.

[Radical Edward]

Here is a nice little file showing the comparisons of the human and chimp karotypes, notice how well they match.

[Radical Edward]

and here is a nice set of skulls. feel free to tell us which are human and which are ape.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I say, there goes those "But there's no proof of evolution!" people! They do match!

[danmoore80]

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

[Radical Edward]

Endogenous retroviral sequences sometimes enter the germline of organisms. The virus on infecting the somatic cell mutates occasionally and does not work, and may become embedded in the population. This happens many times and provides excellent evidence of common ancestry. Here is a chart detailing a number of ERVs in the primates:

[danmoore80]

I think you have to go a little farther back than your "we evolved from monkey's story" How about the basis for your entire evolution theory....There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A,b,c,i=ape by my guess.
the rest look human. But I think it's an evolutionary chart. So it's hard to tell.

[danmoore80]

No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #18 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32235#post32235):
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind.

what do you mean by kind? bear in mind that all organisms form nested hierarchies. What do you mean by physical law? there are a number of types of mutation that can drastically alter animals, or even alter them just a little bit over many generations
Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

insects don't evolve into non-insects because that is not how evolution works. Evolution works on a principle of inheritance, in that the offspring inherit the characteristics of the parent, with some minor modification. This forms a set of nested hierarchies.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #22 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32239#post32239):
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.

see, more fallacies. no-one says that soil turned into grass and trees. far from it, the process of evolution and abiogenesis is far more complex and lengthly than that.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #20 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32237#post32237):
I think you have to go a little farther back than your "we evolved from monkey's story" How about the basis for your entire evolution theory....There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

are you going to answert any points or just bombard us with fallacies?

[danmoore80]

Radical Edward said in post #23 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32240#post32240):

Evolution works on a principle of inheritance, in that the offspring inherit the characteristics of the parent, with some minor modification.


Then how did we get all the different types of animals if these restrictions are implaced?

[Radical Edward]

descent with modification, that simple.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

danmoore80 said in post #22 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32239#post32239):
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.
Yes, but life can come from all the enzymes, acids, and all those other chemicals necessary for life hitting each other. Then chemical processes made it dissolve something else and take some bits out of it. It is now a basic living thing.

[danmoore80]

Radical Edward said in post #27 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32244#post32244):
descent with modification, that simple.

I understand that it is easier to believe that than it is to believe that there is a God and He created all things :) And being that it is a "belief" and not a scientific fact I dont think it should be taught in public school. Ask yourself this, when was the first time the "theory" of Creation was ever introduced to you? My guess is that it was well after you were brainwashed into believeing Evolution.

[danmoore80]

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, you believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Is this correct?

[Radical Edward]

speciation has been observed several times in plants and animals. There is a species of mosquito that exists only in the london undewrground, since being split off from the mosquitoes that live above ground. There are a number of plant species that have speciated, drosophila melanogaster has speciated in the lab. hence this has been observed. Furthermore there are examples of geographical speciation, such as the black backed gull, salamanders in the US, and the Israeli naked mole rat.

will you please end the non-sequitir arguments?

over time, the accumulation of mutations and natural selection as a result of the pressures of the environment can, and will and have created new forms of animals. We can see this in the fossil record, for example the evolution from mesonyx to the modern carnivorae. We can see it happening in the modern day, such as in the threefold increase in brain size in raccoons that live around cities. There are countless examples of both things that you are asking for.

[Radical Edward]

oh, I missed the York Groundsel - the hybridisation of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort, which cannot breed with either of it's parent species.

[danmoore80]

Thanks.

[Radical Edward]

no problem. are you going to address any of the evidence then? It is quite substantial, and there is an awful lot more that I will provide if the conversation continues.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

danmoore80 said in post #29 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32246#post32246):


I understand that it is easier to believe that than it is to believe that there is a God and He created all things :) And being that it is a "belief" and not a scientific fact I dont think it should be taught in public school. Ask yourself this, when was the first time the "theory" of Creation was ever introduced to you? My guess is that it was well after you were brainwashed into believeing Evolution.
When I heard about creation I was already doubting religion just as I doubted Santa Claus.

danmoore80 said in post #30 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32247#post32247):
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, you believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Is this correct?
Depends on how you classify "new species". And it takes thousands of years for enough modifications to make it very different. Laboratories aren't around that long. And, according to the New Scientist 28 September 2002 if you stop the protein hsp90 mutations will start showing up. Naturally the protein stops doing it's job when there is a time of stress, making it's offspring have mutations (in flies at least) such as eyes on stalks, wings with different venation patterns and shapes, folded abdomens, different leg structure, like evolution speeded up. THAT is evolution.

[blike]

STOP RIGHT THERE

Before we proceed, I ask that danmoore80 explain to us how the process of evolution works. Once he has demonstrated a working knowledge of evolution, then can we argue on the same level.

Therefore this thread must come to a screaming halt for a moment.

[JaKiri]

Just as an aside, blike

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #35 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32252#post32252):

Depends on how you classify "new species"

Speciation has been observed duder. A kind of fish in the pacific.

[newbie]

danmoore80,
Evolution has been observed. One only needs to look at speciation. Evolution does not say one kind of creature can turn naturally into a completely different kind “Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it” . This is why speciation occurs with only pre-existing genetic information. To have a cat evolve into a dog would require new genetic information. That has never been proven or observed.

As Radical Edward stated, I will explain a couple of his examples. The species of mosquito known as Culex pipiens , cut off from their diet they became an underground variety known as molest. The York Groundsel is another good example. Basically it is just a hybrid of the Common Groundsel and the Oxford Ragwort as Radical Edward stated; but it is only a reproductive isolation and not evolution in the sort of cats evolving into dogs.

Too answer your question is no evolution does not allow one species to evolve into a completely different more complex species.


__________________________________________________

Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute.

[danmoore80]

Your "process of evolution"


Evolutionists believe it is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.

The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between......or so you would have us to believe ;)

[Sayonara³]

Who is this "us"?

[danmoore80]

newbie said in post #38 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32271#post32271):
danmoore80,
Evolution does not say one kind of creature can turn naturally into a completely different kind [i]“


Newbie.....I hate to brake it to you, but you sould understand your belief of Evolution a little better.....you see the Evolutionistic view of the begining says that "Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule" These "chemicals" all came from the SAME exact place, so indeed they are not indifferent. That is like saying for instance that a mother gives birth to two identical twins. One of them moves to the ocean, one moves to the moutains. Because the one who moved to the ocean his childrens childrens children will eventually develop webbed feet, and then probably gills. And the one who moved to the mountain, well his decendents will eventually develop hooves. Perhaps it is because I grew up in church, that I have such a hard time swallowing the "evolution theory"

[JaKiri]

danmoore80 said in post #39 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32281#post32281):
Evolutionists believe it is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.

Yep.

The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.

Sort of.

As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between......or so you would have us to believe ;)

It's all A CONSPIRACY!

[fafalone]

You try copying 3 billion pieces of information in a couple minutes using dozens of different enzymes without making a single mistake, then come explain why mutations can't happen.

[JaKiri]

danmoore80 said in post #41 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32286#post32286):
Newbie.....I hate to brake it to you, but you sould understand your belief of Evolution a little better.....you see the Evolutionistic view of the begining says that "Billions of years ago, according to the theory of evolution, chemicals randomly organized themselves into a self-replicating molecule" These "chemicals" all came from the SAME exact place, so indeed they are not indifferent. That is like saying for instance that a mother gives birth to two identical twins. One of them moves to the ocean, one moves to the moutains. Because the one who moved to the ocean his childrens childrens children will eventually develop webbed feet, and then probably gills. And the one who moved to the mountain, well his decendents will eventually develop hooves. Perhaps it is because I grew up in church, that I have such a hard time swallowing the "evolution theory"

That's a common fallacy.

[danmoore80]

I find alot of this stuff interesting......it is what appears to me to be a coverup, buy the people who insist that evolution, and not Creation actually took place. There is a story I read recently, and it was talking about Dinosarus of today....now I know that if indeed there were Dinosaurs still roaming the earth today then the theory of evolution would be seriously flawed. A couple of these stories talk about finding the carcus of what they believed to be a Plesiosaurus. What happened to them? Ahh...they were lost somehow in transport. Or could it be that a select group of people didn't want anyone to find out that in fact dinosaurs have been living with us all along? Just a thought.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #28 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32245#post32245):

Yes, but life can come from all the enzymes, acids, and all those other chemicals necessary for life hitting each other. Then chemical processes made it dissolve something else and take some bits out of it. It is now a basic living thing.
That explains one thing...

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #35 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32252#post32252):

When I heard about creation I was already doubting religion just as I doubted Santa Claus.


Depends on how you classify "new species". And it takes thousands of years for enough modifications to make it very different. Laboratories aren't around that long. And, according to the New Scientist 28 September 2002 if you stop the protein hsp90 mutations will start showing up. Naturally the protein stops doing it's job when there is a time of stress, making it's offspring have mutations (in flies at least) such as eyes on stalks, wings with different venation patterns and shapes, folded abdomens, different leg structure, like evolution speeded up. THAT is evolution.
Did you happen to read these?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

:rant:
danmoore80 said in post #45 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32293#post32293):
I find alot of this stuff interesting......it is what appears to me to be a coverup, buy the people who insist that evolution, and not Creation actually took place. There is a story I read recently, and it was talking about Dinosarus of today....now I know that if indeed there were Dinosaurs still roaming the earth today then the theory of evolution would be seriously flawed. A couple of these stories talk about finding the carcus of what they believed to be a Plesiosaurus. What happened to them? Ahh...they were lost somehow in transport. Or could it be that a select group of people didn't want anyone to find out that in fact dinosaurs have been living with us all along? Just a thought.
Dinosaurs of today are not like the dinosaurs of yesterday. Scientists believe dinosaurs evolved (uh-oh!) into birds. They believe this because the hip structure and such is remarkably like dinosaurs. I also do not believe the people saying they found a Plesiosaurus, unless it is millions of years old. Saying it was lost in transport is a fancy excuse for "I'm lying and I don't have anything for you to see."
Read our posts and CONSIDER THEM!! If you sit here and argue without noticing what we counter then it is not an argument!
[/rant]

[danmoore80]

Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. Genes are of a complicated designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.

[fafalone]

So you consider my example of mutations that confer resistance to antibiotics in bacteria to be mutations that decrease the chances of survival of the organism? lol

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

danmoore80 said in post #48 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32302#post32302):
Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. Genes are of a complicated designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.
And where did you get that idea? In the seventy years (unlike the millions for evolution) not much will happen. And, some changes may not appear genetic. Take giraffes, for example. It is believed they used to have short necks. Then, when they ate off the low branches of the trees, they couldn't eat much. When one was mutated and had a longer neck, it lived a lot longer than the others, and had loads of offspring. So over many generations they all got long necks. Very plausible.

[danmoore80]

Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

fafalone said in post #49 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32303#post32303):
So you consider my example of mutations that confer resistance to antibiotics in bacteria to be mutations that decrease the chances of survival of the organism? lol
That's why I said he should read all our posts. This is turning into a :flame: war.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

danmoore80 said in post #51 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32308#post32308):
Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria.
What about anti-biotic resistant diseases? READ OUR POSTS!
Please, lock this thread, obviously danmoore80 is not reading what we say and I'm sick of :rant: ing at him for it. Lock it for our sanity.

[danmoore80]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #50 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32307#post32307):

Take giraffes, for example. It is believed they used to have short necks.

Funny I have never seen the remains of a giraffe with the "short neck" as you describe. Sounds like "theory" to me.

[danmoore80]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #53 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32310#post32310):

danmoore80 is not reading what we say

Who is we? And what you say makes little difference. What does Science, and not "evolution" say?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

[rant]
You haven't seen the remains because you're not an archeologist. Have you watched a special on giraffe evolution? Probably not. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Tell me, did you read all of what we said?
Again, I say, lock this thread! It's a worthless thread because all we do now is argue without considering all the evidence. danmoore80 should have easily been convinced long ago, but it's apparent he's not reading it.
[\rant] :rant:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

danmoore80 said in post #55 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32314#post32314):


Who is we? And what you say makes little difference. What does Science, and not "evolution" say?
"we" is all the people arguing. What we say makes little difference? Now I am REALLY mad! What we say is genuine arguments and you do not read it! And evolution IS science! Science has proved evolution.

[danmoore80]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #57 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32319#post32319):

And evolution IS science! Science has proved evolution.


Once again I hate to brake the news, but I have yet to meet a Scientist that has concluded what you just have. They state that they have support for their claim, but not that Science has proved without a doubt the existence of evolution. You may well be the next Nobel Peace Prize Winner!!!!! Congradulations :)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but what you have seen is not everything! If it is taught in elementary school, I believe most scientists concur.

[danmoore80]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #59 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32325#post32325):
Yes, but what you have seen is not everything! If it is taught in elementary school, I believe most scientists concur.

I can agree to some extent. What I am trying to convey, is that Evolution is being taught in elementary schools as a proven fact, something that is concrete. And it is not. Were you ever taught about creationism? More than likely you were not. Most are taught from the time they can remember that for instance, "Dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago". Not that some believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. One thing that is kinda interesting is that for arguments sake, let's say that I am a complete moron :) which some have already concluded. I believe then in a religion that is taking me nowhere and when I die I am just going to be recycled into the earth. No big deal, that's where we all will be. But on the other hand, what if I'm right. This leads to an alternate ending that without salvation is going to be quite unpleasant.

I hate to leave it like this, but I have to get up pretty early in the morning for work, and I sure most are tired of me posting anyway. Goodnight, and God Bless.

[Radical Edward]

the "us" will be creationists. and now I would like him to point out what is the problem with the above. minus the incredulity, with examples.

[iglak]

danmoore80 said in post #30 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32247#post32247):
It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, you believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. Is this correct?
when has it ever ben observed that god could create anything?
there is little or no evidence for creationism, we haven't been brainwashed into evolution. my personal feeling is that i am resisting the brainwashing of religion.

you have been talking about evolution being wrong and creationism being right. please, state evidence for creationism.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #60 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32327#post32327):
[B]
I can agree to some extent. What I am trying to convey, is that Evolution is being taught in elementary schools as a proven fact, something that is concrete.

that is because it is.
And it is not.

yes it is. things evolve. fact.
Were you ever taught about creationism? More than likely you were not.

so? thank goodness.
Most are taught from the time they can remember that for instance, "Dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago". Not that some believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago.

that is because all the evidence says they did.
One thing that is kinda interesting is that for arguments sake, let's say that I am a complete moron :) which some have already concluded. I believe then in a religion that is taking me nowhere and when I die I am just going to be recycled into the earth. No big deal, that's where we all will be. But on the other hand, what if I'm right. This leads to an alternate ending that without salvation is going to be quite unpleasant.

you do know that pascal's wager is horrifically flawed logic, right?

[JaKiri]

Danmoore80, I can't work out whether you're deliberately ignoring everyone who has counter-evidence, and if this is a sign that you're either a parody of a creationist or something much more horrible.