[narby]

The fact that many of the sources explaining the theory of evolution go out of their way to denounce religious people or creationism doesn't answer questions.

They only do that because the vast majority of anti-evolutionists cite Genesis as their prefered replacement to evolution. Science doesn't concern itself with religion, but the majority of anti-evolution people are religiously motivated. If you're the exception, great. But you've lumped yourself in with religious people, so, well, what can I say.

A question I have regarding similarities in DNA is: does that mean that all the animals came from the same original source? Or does it just mean that living creatures must have certain components to allow them to live on earth?

No. The reason is that retrovirus DNA inserts itself in any old random place in host DNA. The fact that we've inherited these fossilized remnants of virus DNA in exactly the same position as monkey and ape DNA means that it originated from a single infection in a single individual millions of years ago. No other explanation (other than religious) can explain it.

And your last paragraph about people believing in alien beings doesn't really relate to what I said.

What it relates to is that you mentioned something (to paraphrase) about the majority of Americans wanting to teach alternatives to evolution. My point is that Americans believe all kinds of stupid stuff like alien beings, yet we don't teach it in school just because people believe it's true.

[Cinnamon Girl]

Narby, seriously, continuing to harp on religious people is getting tiresome to read. Is it a big issue for you because you are anti-religious? I don't mind being "lumped in with religious people." Do you? I'm not really into being dismissed because you think that anyone who questions the evolution theory is not a serious thinker. Based on some of your arguments, since "creationism" is an older theory than "evolution" and continues to be supported by many people, it must then be true. That doesn't sound like a scientific argument. Conversely, you said that if you can't offer an alternative to evolution then it stands. Well, don't some people offer creationism or intelligent design as an alternative? I don't get how that's a scientific argument either.

Also, I will have to read more about the retrovirus because what you said doesn't support evolution, in my opinion. It still operates on the assumption that if DNA is similar it must be from the same exact source. To me, that is a leap and the "missing links" haven't been found. Why stop with apes, though? If every creature came from the same original one, then aren't humans just as related to lizards, ultimately?