Resources on Evolution

[Speedwell]

In terms of using cladogram, it can not "confirm" evolution in logic. If you don't believe, then try one. You WILL see that the illogic part is quite obvious.

Try one what?

 

[Jimmy D]

They predicted one, but failed one hundred.
Of course, they won't tell you those failures.

Please enlighten us.

 

[46AND2]

They predicted one, but failed one hundred.
Of course, they won't tell you those failures.

If they don't tell us the failures, how do you know about them?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They predicted one, but failed one hundred.

Such as?

Of course, they won't tell you those failures.

Yes, yes.... "they". As in, the all scientists conspiracy.

 

[juvenissun]

Please enlighten us.

Sorry, I am not a biologist. I can criticize, but I can not teach.

 

[juvenissun]

If they don't tell us the failures, how do you know about them?

Because when I ask the question, they can not answer.

 

[xianghua]

The evolutionary model predicts that mapping out the traits of living things will reveal a family tree, which is a nested hierarchy.

the design scenario also predict such a tree:

are you saying now that id is true?

 

[xianghua]

Because when I ask the question, they can not answer.

evolution actually predict nothing. so any finding will fit by definition. we find hierarcy? evolution is true. we found non hierarchy? evolution is true etc. id also predict a tree as you can see above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the design scenario also predict such a tree:
View attachment 246343

are you saying now that id is true?

The difference is that phylogenetic trees in biology are actually real graphs that reflect real data, and not pulled out of your behind, conjured up in ms paint, like your silly drawing.

 

[Speedwell]

the design scenario also predict such a tree:
View attachment 246343

are you saying now that id is true?

Your tree is a cheat because you get to place the objects on it at your own whim, rather than being restricted to how and when the objects actually occurred.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry, I am not a biologist. I can criticize, but I can not teach.

So you first make accusations about "hundreds of failed predictions" and when asked for a couple examples, you don't want to share?

We should just "believe" you? A fundamentalist creationist on some religious website, over the consensus of thousands of working scientists around the world?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because when I ask the question, they can not answer.

perhaps they do answer, and you're simply not reading the responses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

evolution actually predict nothing. so any finding will fit by definition. we find hierarcy? evolution is true. we found non hierarchy? evolution is true etc. id also predict a tree as you can see above.

How could no nested hierarchy ever support common biological ancestry?

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry, I am not a biologist. I can criticize, but I can not teach.

Do you retract your claim then? Because it looks like you are just making things up, which suggests you should be neither criticizing nor teaching.

 

[Jimmy D]

the design scenario also predict such a tree:
View attachment 246343

are you saying now that id is true?

Stupid nested hierarchy diagram violated.

 

[xianghua]

The difference is that phylogenetic trees in biology are actually real graphs that reflect real data, and not pulled out of your behind, conjured up in ms paint, like your silly drawing.

are you saying that a typical car isnt colser to other car then to a truck?

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that a typical car isnt colser to other car then to a truck?

It depends on where you park them.

 

[xianghua]

How could no nested hierarchy ever support common biological ancestry?

what is the problem? we can claim for multiple origins of species or convergent evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Stupid nested hierarchy diagram violated.

convergent design. no problem.

 

[46AND2]

Because when I ask the question, they can not answer.

What question?