Showing a group of totally disturbed individuals is in no way reflective of the actuality of God.Religion trumps facts for people desperate to believe something else.
The Heaven's Gate religious group is testament to that, 39 people committed suicide believing their souls would be transported to a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet.
none of these has any evidence of being the product of evolutionary processes and pathways
no evidence for instance for unicellular life evolving into multicellular life
You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.And I'm done. You're not aware of the evidence and have been ignoring it whenever it comes up, or not understanding it. Either way, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this line of conversation.
You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.
From the first sentence in your link:
A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.
Need I say more?
They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.Showing a group of totally disturbed individuals is in no way reflective of the actuality of God.
This is getting real tiresome. I am not in anyway claiming that evolution is wrong. I am saying that claims made about evolution are wrong. That is the problem, you continue to think that any evidence for evolution means that evolution explains everything that needs to be explained and that is simply not true. Evolution didn't evolve. Evolution is not an entity. Evolution does not explain exactly how the necessary conditions for the occurrence of natural selection were blindly brought into place. It doesn't explain how cumulative selection could have got its start.Actually evidence has been given to creationists many many times. The problem is that none of them seem to understand the nature of evidence. Each new fossil find is evidence. It is also a test of the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution was wrong there is no known reason to expect fossils to fall into the evolutionary paradigm. By denying that evidence has been given to you you only show that you do not understand the nature of evidence.
Now you are complaining that after an answer was given to you that it is not the sort of observation that would falsify the theory. You demand instant evolution and observing that would mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. You not only do not understand the nature of evidence, now you are being hypocritical.
Well you know what they say about opinions...everyone has one.They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.
You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.
From the first sentence in your link:
A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.
Need I say more?
I believe that the nested hierarchy is suffering from discordance in linage's and that it is a system that has been used prior to genetics so it is not based upon them. However, I accept that groups of organisms are known to undergo descent with modification. So what does that have to do with your lack of evidence for the claims being made by Dawkins and others?Do you accept that a group of organisms that are known to undergo descent with modification forming a nested hierarchy (with regards to genetics or morphology) is an indication of common descent?
They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.
It's not an opinion it's a fact you just don't want to admit it.Well you know what they say about opinions...everyone has one.
Your opinion is not a fact.It's not an opinion it's a fact you just don't want to admit it.
Let me rephrase.I believe that the nested hierarchy is suffering from discordance in linage's and that it is a system that has been used prior to genetics so it is not based upon them. However, I accept that groups of organisms are known to undergo descent with modification. So what does that have to do with your lack of evidence for the claims being made by Dawkins and others?
Well done, you managed to turn that completely around, from soul delivery to opinion.Your opinion is not a fact.
Just as we know that Gravity works, how it affects objects and the like; we know that evolution has its mechanisms and how it affects the genetic structure of life.
You do realise there is a price to pay for thinking like that don't you? a very heavy price indeed.If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it. Adaptation has limits. That leaves the hopeful monster, or wishful thinking. Pokemon evolution is a more believable fiction than Darwinism.
If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it.
They are not the same. Research it.Well done, you managed to turn that completely around, from soul delivery to opinion.
My opinion is not a fact but all religions being the same is a fact, but so what?
if you care then it matters if you don't it doesn't.
If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it.
Adaptation has limits.
1. This is evidence of evolution not evidence for the design we see in organisms.Let me rephrase.
Let's say we have a group of organisms known to reproduce imperfectly (descent with modification). We can measure objective traits within those groups, and use a cladistics algorithm to put them into a cladogram. This cladogram forms a neat nested hierarchy. Furthermore, we do the same thing with the genetics of those organisms, and get the exact same cladogram.
Is this evidence that that group of organisms shares a common ancestor?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?