A.J. Phillips you write

'National Geographic is a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and the article in it about the Archaeoraptor was not done by a scientist.'

Well you better let Oliver and the many others of your faith know that National Geographic is not your bible just your propaganda tool.

Dear AJ,
I was under the mistaken belief that evolutionists believe that with the passing of much time animals turned into humans and as I said
I will become a believer when a monkey produces a human. As you dispute this I have no idea what an evolutinist believes in.

runner,

According to your reasoning God does not exist. Why? Because The Shroud of Turin is a forgery.

"You ask me (runner) what evidence would convince me? A mute point as there is none." - That is a truly a remarkable statement. It even goes beyond a Peanuts cartoon, I once saw, wherein, Linus refuses to read a book given to him by Lucy; "because it might change the way I think", exclaims Linus!

So, you say no argument, no amount of evidence can sway a creationist.

BTW: It is unlikely any peer-reviwed journal would have made the National Geographic claim, because the paleonologist is meant to produce a side of the Earth (the mould) from which the fossil is lifted. That would make any forgery harder.

Let's hope that no one finds that the Mona Lisa was not painted by da Vinci. Because, then, Art would not exist.

Bottom line, there is a record of species' archiac past present in their DNA

When a monkey produces a human?

Clearly evolution and natural selection was not taught at that school.

Dear Pelican,
Could YOU PLEASE TELL ME what evolutionists believe is the origans of the human race as I was of the mistaken belief that they believed man came from monkeys by chance not by inteligent design,each reproducing after its own kind.

Runner,

How could the National Geographic be a “propaganda tool” when scientists rejected the fossil of the supposed Archaeoraptor?

The Archaeopteryx isn’t a hoax and it’s an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

Oliver,

Brilliant response, and brilliant analogy there.

Richie 10,

Since you appear to be so genuine in your apparent desire to understand evolution, I’d be happy to answer that if I may.

Evolution doesn’t say that we came from monkeys. Monkeys are as modern and “evolved” as we are. Instead we share a common ancestor with them - or more recently - with apes. In fact our DNA tells us that we still are apes. We’re simply a different type of ape.

Our closest relative - the creature that we share the most common ancestor with - is the Chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are as modern and “evolved” as we are, although due to the hundreds of intimidate fossils we’ve found of ancient humans, we can be quite sure that the common ancestor we share with Chimpanzees would have looked more like them than us.

Rather than a monkey giving birth to a humans, a good analogy that I’ve heard, is that if you were to hold your mother’s hand, and she were to hold her mother’s hand, and she were to hold her mother’s hand etc., then after 500 kilometres of this hand-holding, you would eventually arrive at the common ancestor that we share with Chimpanzees, which going by our DNA and the fossils found, scientists estimate to have lived around 5-7 million years ago.

We share a common ancestor with every living creature today; it’s all a matter of how far down the line you have to go to get to the common ancestor that we share with another creature.

If you genuinely are interested in understanding evolution, then there's a fascinating documentary about how whales evolved over the last 50 million years from land creatures to the ocean dwellers we now know them to be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp6KKg1MVtA (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw0P0H9jcQA (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWt2Hxj3D60 (Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvP4qiswy3E (Part 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2XV-gv6A1w (Part 5)