You like misstating what people say?
Nice. Take one very nonspecific phylogenetic tree that only gives a broad outline and claim to have a perfect evolutionary tree. Wonderful. Next...Still wallowing in incredulity and ignorance, Swa? Still...?
Non-issue:
Here's something for you to read...
You did not take that in the context it was posted.
There is no need for a 'perfect evolutionary tree', nor any reasonable expectation that one will ever be produced. All that's needed is a viable natural explanation for an observed phenomenon, which by default trumps any appeal to supposed intelligent design.
You posed a question. It was answered.
If everything evolved from a common ancestor it stands to reason there should be a perfect evolutionary tree. Yet DNA, ERVs, microRNAs, and homology all give different evolutionary trees. That doesn't trump anything.
Related to the development of life. A pure chance event. You answered basically with natural selectiondidit™ regarding after the development of life. Your interpretation is still not something that's commonly accepted to be the case however.
It stands to reason that, when attempting to reconstruct a picture which had its foundations laid an almost unfathomably long time ago, the image will get more murky the further back one peers. You want perfect because you mistakenly think a goat herders' anthology offers perfection; out here in the real world perfection is sometimes neither practical nor necessary.
Again, we have no grounds to declare it so. We live on a rocky planet, orbiting a normal small star, located on one arm of a cosmically unremarkable spiral galaxy, and we're attempting to reconstruct four billion year old occurrences. We do not have the data to proclaim that the emergence of life is either rare or the product of chance.
Our claimed most recent ancestor is anything but unfathomably long ago.
But we have the data to declare it isn't rare without evidence to back that up. Right, I forgot...
If evolution "debates" generally degrade into nonsense (unskinny's definition for philosophy) then it stands to reason it's built on nothing but nonsense.
And we have the first one to see the problem. The problem being a problem with no answer yet some claim one branch of science not to be science because it doesn't provide an answer. Yet the other one doesn't either.
You forgot the parts where they argued about god and other religious and philosophical bullschit for page upon page.
.
You forget who it was that introduced that.
No cartwheels necessary. You still don't get it with all your mental gymnastics.Major pot kettle , good thing you're wrong. Now i know your modus operandi so i fully expect you to perform some grammatical cartwheels to get around this one which will be nothing but a lie. Either way have a good weekend Swa
They can't prove they are right but teach it as though they are.
And you missed the entire gist of it.
Sign up with Google