You did when you said that life was designed and created separately.
You don't even know what created separately means so how in the world do you conclude that design precludes evolution?
Skunks fall into a monophyletic group. What is your purpose in pointing this out?
You wanted a study to back my claim.
Then why do you keep claiming that life was designed and created separately? Also, I do have the evidence that all life shares a common ancestor.
And why do you continue to avoid telling me what it means to you to be created separately.
Supportive evidence is evidence. That's how it works.
If it works for you, it works for me. Remember that.
Why is a nested hierarchy necessary?
Mantra. It is necessary because that is how life progressed throughout its history.
That is false. The theory of evolution says nothing about the chances of specific species being fossilized and surviving in enough numbers to have been found. In fact, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in Origin of Species on why we will always be missing some of these fossils.
No, you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that there would need to be precursors to have the life forms in the Cambrian according to ToE. Missing fossils is one thing, missing an entire stage in the evolution model is another.
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained' Darwin.
The DNA evidence is overwhelming.
It doesn't matter. It is supportive evidence. It doesn't prove empirically that which is missing.
That you think fossils are the only way to evidence evolution.
Don't presume to tell me what I think. I don't think fossils are the only way to evidence evolution.
DNA is the empirical proof (as in "proven beyond a reasonable doubt").
For what?
Baloney. I have both DNA and fossil evidence. What do you have other than claims?
So do I. I also have a worldview that consistently works with what we see in nature. I have evidence that supports what the Bible says about the universe. All these things support that what the Bible says is true concerning our universe and the life we see in it.
Sorry, but evidence that is consistent with normal natural processes is not evidence of God. Never has been.
Who says? Who has the authority to claim that natural processes are hands off to God. Who has the authority to tell God that evidence that points to Him is not allowed. If I and millions of other Christians are correct, God created this universe and everything in it and His authority will not be left unchallenged. It might be inflating to think that you are debating the existence of God with mere humans, but if we are right, God will be the one that proves you wrong. God said that men would worship the created rather than the Creator.
You are telling me that I have to accept that God exists without any evidence. Sorry, that isn't going to happen. Present the evidence, then I will consider it.
I am not telling you have to accept God at all. That is between you and God. However, you claim that there is no reason to accept that there is any evidence for God and the Creation Narrative and that is false.
I have no presupposition that God does or doesn't exist. Don't project your presuppositions onto me. Keep them to yourself.
I think that is just your safe little corner that you hide in. You can tell me that you just want evidence for God but I don't believe that to be the truth and I think you know it. You want to continue to believe that there is no God. You don't want to be a believer and have the whole scientific community who you hold in high esteem to brand you stupid or ignorant of the world. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt it.
I see that you are projecting your own close-mindedness onto me. If you present evidence that God exists then I will accept that God exists. I have no presuppositions one way or the other.
You know you might be right. Maybe you do want some irrefutable evidence so that it would make it more acceptable in the world's eyes to see that there is evidence for His existence. Maybe then it wouldn't be so ridiculed and the believers wouldn't be considered stupid. But God doesn't want it that way. It is a personal choice and with that choice comes different outcomes. Just sayin'.
Species that do not share a common ancestor. Those are separately created kinds. I have said this multiple times now.
Exactly, you keep saying the same thing, all the while not saying anything at all. What are separately created kinds?
The only preconceived idea is yours. You have admitted that you start with the presupposition that whatever we see God had to create it, no matter what. This leads you to pretend as if God's actions will be indistinguishable from God not acting at all. It leads you to absolutely ludicrous conclusions.
You start with the preconceived idea that only evolution could be true. So?
How did you determine this? Do you have a time machine?
We do not have any currently.
Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
Whatever. I don't care one way or the other.
For humans we do see ape-like precursurs. For apes we see monkey-like precursors. For primates we see mammal precursors, and it continues right down the line.
So?
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional?
You are not getting this whole thing.
