again: too many topics at once. i want to focus. first about the rabbit: im sure that evolutionists can make any explanation under the evolution theory to explain how this suppose ancient rabbit exist even in a different environment.
A claim you have made repeatedly and have never been able to provide any evidence for whatsoever. To be extremely blunt, how the heck could anyone explain the presence of an oxygen breathing organism in a rock layer that predates oxygen being a major component of the Earth's atmosphere?
You've never once been able to give an example of any scientific authority dismissing legitimate evidence against evolution, especially not any that would disprove evolution outright. Real evidence, by the way, not faked fossils or biased experimental results. Furthermore, you've never presented any evidence that would disprove evolution. Where's your Precambrian rabbit? How can you assert and complain that evidence for your position would be dismissed when you don't have any evidence to begin with? You don't have anything to complain about.
even today we can see many similar creatures in a different environment, so evolution can explain it by adaptation.
Every time you use the word "similar", I want you to remember that similar is not the same, and that your point is likely to be invalid. In fact, any post you make after this one, I'm going to bold the word "similar" and just have that as my response, because I am tired of reminding you that similar and identical are not the same thing and that your claims do not apply similar yet different organisms/genes. Similar organisms exist because similar environments can simultaneously exist in different parts of the world, thus different species can occupy the same niche in these separate environments. No organisms which develop via convergent evolution are identical to each other. Identical, not similar, identical.
about the alx3 gene: is just an ad hoc explanation. we can claim that this gene actually created by the designer in different lineages. why the evolutionery claim is better then creationist one in this case?
-_- because there isn't evidence for any creator, and no practical purpose to organisms on this planet being as genetically similar to each other as they are. Basically, there isn't any evidence for intelligent design, and any claimed evidence thus far has either been faked or is entirely indistinguishable from the evidence for evolution, meaning that the "intelligent design" interpretation is a matter of opinion and not based on the evidence in and of itself.
In any case, you claimed that this was a depiction of at least 1 gene developing in independent lineages, yet this diagram shows no indication of that. I advise you not to use sources that disagree with your claims. It should be EASY to present to me organisms which independently developed identical genes without shared ancestry being a plausible explanation if it happens so frequently that it's a problem for determining relatedness. After all, shared lineage wasn't considered to be a valid explanation for some of the similarities between the bat and whale sequences, right? All you have to do is find something like that, but in which 100+ base pairs in a row are identical. Until you can do that, your claims are entirely empty. I'm not even asking for an entire gene necessarily, just 100+ identical base pairs that couldn't feasibly be inherited by a common ancestor. The more distant the lineages, the better.
