Ahh, they aren't actually indistinguishable in their DNA. Just very similar. I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm certain it's not true.

I've read in several sources that you can't tell wolves and various breeds of dogs by any DNA test including DNA fingerprinting.

You can trace family lines... but you can't really look at a DNA line and know exactly what it is like you could wike a monkey or some such.

Maybe there has been further refinment since i've read that though that i haven't come opon.

What is the fundamental difference between a dog and a cat?  Different DNA.

Can DNA change?  Yes, mutations in DNA happen all the time.

Put them together.

You either didn't take science at school or chose not to listen because if you did you would understand that science changes its stance farely regularly to conform with the facts. Yeah there were discrepancies in Darwins' theory of evolution, nobody worth his salt will deny that, you can't get something like evolution 100% right first time. Darwin was very open about the errors in his theory, if you've ever read his book there is even a chapter explaining the flaws. But at the end of it he also asks future generations of scientists to explore these flaws in his theory and since then that is what we have been doing.

I'm not going to pretend there are still discrepancies in the theory, because there are. What I am going to say is that the vast majority of those flaws found in the theory of evolution have now been solved and the theory has been adapted to suit the new evidence. It is at the point now where it can't be denied any longer, the evidence is more than sufficient to prove evolution occurs, we're just ironing out the creases.

Have a look at any other theory and you will see the exact same story. No-one is trying to hide the flaws, in fact it is the opposite. Scientists are very open about them because they want to solve flaws to better understand the theory. This applies to every theory, it is more or less the definition of scientific theory.

Using the "Darwin was wrong" argument is a case of an extremely flawed understanding of science i'm afraid.

I believe that the logic behind the evolution theory is mostly accurate.

On the ther hand, I'm not sure that it actually explains the origin of life, or just the reason for its structure.


There are still some pretty big holes in the theory, for example about the origin of humans. Most existing fossils are either obviously human, or animal. But scientists directly TRY to prove that their new finding is the missing link. I'm not saying that it's an evolutionist conspiracy, it is just natural that they try to make their findings more important than they are.

Artist renderings usually show most old human and ape remains as mostly furry, tool-using creatures with an ape's face and human hands, standing on their back feet, and working in a team, even when the whole species only exists as a small skull fragment, or a few ribs, and the rest is speculation.

So much fail in one thread.

See picture of skulls further up in the thread.

Evolution is not supposed to explain the origin of life. It's supposed to explain the origin of species. Abiogenesis is supposed to explain the origin of life. 

Supernovae produce heavy elements.

Concerning iron's role in fusion.  You can fuse any elements together to create higher ones, however you can only gain energy out of fusion up to iron (element 26).  Past iron, nuclear fusion consumes energy instead of gaining energy.  Fusion creating elements higher than iron only means that the star lost energy producing said element, which occurs in supernova.

I would like to second this. If life was created then why would we have useless organs that are functional in other species that are closely related to us?

The whale is a great example of vestigial organs in evolution.