Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Only a creationist would make such ignorant claims.
You are of course completely wrong. You have no explanation for the fact that the evidence only supports the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only a creationist would make such ignorant claims.The computer models mapping gene sequences are not even close to complete nor do they 'more than make up for' supposed missing links. I'm not a 'creationist' and agree with many aspects of the theory of evolution but I think you're the one who's putting too much faith into holy books—or is it PowerPoint slides on YouTube?
Nah, not until you are honest enough to own up to one of the many mistakes of yours that have been corrected. I am ready with one as soon as you do. But if a person continually is corrected and merely repeats the same errors he is in no place to make any demands at all.
Can you be honest?
The computer models mapping gene sequences are not even close to complete nor do they 'more than make up for' supposed missing links. I'm not a 'creationist' and agree with many aspects of the theory of evolution but I think you're the one who's putting too much faith into holy books—or is it PowerPoint slides on YouTube?
It was an observation. Though since you do not even understand the basics of science why don't you try to learn? Your ignorance of the sciences cause you to make terrible error after terrible error.thanks for the compliment.
Um no, the problem for you is that the evidence clearly shows that life is the product of evolution. You need to find evidence for ID if you want to claim that it is real. The problem on your side is that there is no evidence for that nonsense by definition.so even if humans and other animals created by a designer and not evolved from a common descent- then evolution is still true according to this criteria.
Of course not.ok. do you think that a robot that mamde from organic components and have a self replicating system is evidence for design or a natural process?
We are far used to the countless dishonest creationists that someone that is reasonable, and I am not yet saying that you are, may be treated in the same way as the dishonest ones.
But let's go over the points, and why we know that life is the product of evolution.
A key concept to understanding evolution is the Nested Hierarchy. Just as you can trace back in your own lineage to ever greater groups, such as your immediate family that you grew up with, the family that you grew up with and your cousins. The family that you grew up with and your cousins cousins. You will keep finding an ever increasing group.
We can see the same thing in evolution. You can trace it either way. Starting at the first life source and moving on down or starting with one species and moving up. Hopefully this gif posts. If you note there is an acquired trait and everything in the same clade (a group of descendants) will have this same trait:
Yeah! I can see that it works. That is just one list of nested hierarchies. There are several independent ones. And they go hand in hand with the same phylogenetic trees. This is thought to be much stronger evidence than the fossil record alone, but the fossil record also makes such a phylogenetic tree.
If evolution was not the answer the trees should not match. Yet we see them for DNA, the fossil record, ERV's. morphology, and more.
If you want to know why and can come across as being reasonable people will be polite to you. Lately there has been an overdose of people that refuse to understand and blame those on the evolution side for their own recalcitrance.
thanks for this diagram. what about diagrams that doesnt fit with this hierarchy, like this one?:
Figure4
Retroviruses, the Placenta, and the Genomic Junk Drawer
so we indeed found examples of non hierarchy. and if an hierarchy suppose to be evidence for evolution then non hierarchy is evidence against it.
so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system. ok. great claim need a great evidence. do you have such an evidence? so far you gave the nested hierarchy claim. but as you can see above, we have found evidence against it.Of course not.
Did you even read your own post? In it you told us why this robot is not evidence for design.
so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system. ok. great claim need a great evidence. do you have such an evidence? so far you gave the nested hierarchy claim. but as you can see above, we have found evidence against it.
You did not properly embed your image. I can't see how that one disagrees with the one that I posted at all. Please explain how this does not fit within the one that I posted:
take a look at the purple triangles. they appear in several groups of species but not in the species between them (for instance in a cow and a cat but not in a dolphin). this is clearly non hierarchy. so how evolutionists solve this non hierarchy? by claiming that those genes evolved independently at least several times.
You are describing an animal, not a robot.ok. do you think that a robot that made from organic components and have a self replicating system is evidence for design or a natural process?
Oh my! Read the article. Those are different capture events.
If you don't understand what you are doing you can only make yourself look bad,
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?