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.
darwin understood that if thete was something that had specified complexity then his theory would fail.
and nested heirarchy does not exist.
spoon similiar to pots dont imply common decent. they implya common designer.
You have presented zero evidence to back this claim. You haven't shown how determing phylogenies is biased, nor how it begs the question.
You also need to explain why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. If a nested hierarchy is not what we would expect from evolution, then what would we expect?
That isn't even close to the relationship between evolution and nested hierarchies. A nested hierarchy can be determined independently of any claim of common ancestry or evolution. You can determine that cars and automobiles do not fall into an objective nested hierarchy. You can do the same for many, many things that are intelligently designed. However, when those same tests are applied to life, life falls into an objective nested hierarchy.
I don't have to disprove empty claims.
We are showing you the proposed relationships instead of the strawman version you were pushing.
If you are going to argue against evolution, at least learn what the theory states.
well if you could prove phylogenies then we would not be wasting our time here discussing it. nevermind the bias for a moment. I am questioning your premise that phylogenies exist.
I believe because like macro evolution, phylogenies are unobserved in the real world tha there is bias in them. the next statement would be to prove yourself correct.
The tree that you envision is an evil godless tree, and you try to supplant God and His creation with imaginary trees, imaginary unproven past states, and phantom common ancestors of whom you have no evidence, but plenty of belief. Not impressed.
We have found a pattern, and it is the nested hierarchy predicted by common ancestry and evolution.
Not one anywhere ever.That is why the theory is accepted, because it makes accurate and useful predictions.
God made us that way, and we also adapted since creation.You can't explain why we see this pattern.
You should be so lucky, at least it smells good here.Your head is planted deep in the sand.
Adam had no inherited traits. Trees had no inherited traits. In the former nature we do not even know how traits came about.
Are you the same as Hitler?? Life comes from God. He gives the gift of life to each person in the womb. One could even argue before that. DNA has relatively little to do with who we are.
God said so, that works for me. Man knows precious little and certainly has nothing to say about it.Why don't we start here.
Please present your evidence for these claims.
Yes, last time I checked, despite over 99% of all people on earth having the same DNA, they are all different!Seriously?
again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.
Seriously? You ASKED for us to produce a peer reviewed paper!
The closest are humans and chimps followed by humans and macaques then humans and dogs. Distantly related are fruit flies. There is the tree for all to see..
The closest are humans and chimps followed by humans and macaques then humans and dogs. Distantly related are fruit flies. There is the tree for all to see..
He never used the phrase "specified complexity". I dare you to find it anywhere in any of his writings.
It does for complex life.
That's right, because spoons and pots do not fall into a nested hierarchy and do not reproduce. Thanks for making my point.
your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.
How are fruit flies immoral?
again until my scientific papers are read and reviewed why should I read and review yours? I guess you will have to do your own homework.
*emphasis minewe should all review peer reviews, to make sure they are accurate. It's called logical deduction.
your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.
I guess if you can collect human feces and lay your eggs in it, and be okay with it....then it's not immoral.
Religion in the UK (not Islam) is mostly for form filling, when asked what is your religion most people just put C of E.
In the UK religion is usually a personal thing (as it should be) unless it's an import like Mormonism, then like an American car salesman they try to force it on to people, they think that because they are fool enough to believe it everyone is.
People do not 'believe' in evolution they 'accept' it as being the best explanation of why things are like they are.
You I take it would prefer to go with magic, miracles and the supernatural, none of which are explainable,
you might just as well claim that Zeus, Thor or the great JuJu did it all.
Are other faiths claims all ridiculous to you?
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?