SoSick, I'm not sure why you have addressed a question about evolution, genetics and general biology to CTD.
I'm not sure why you care to whom SoSick addresses questions.
I think LinearAQ knows more about these things than anyone else here at the moment.
Lol
There's also the internet to browse, and Talkorigins to look at for specific questions like these. If you ever wanted to join
EvC, then you could ask the scientists themselves.
Now that's a little funny, but far more sickening then funny.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/looney.gif" alt="" />
Evolution and genetics complement each other.
Still hasn't grasped the whole
antithesis thing, I see.
And CTD, you've been asked more than once to back up your assertions with evidence. I see none here.
Not nice. I answered questions honestly. Am I a mind reader? Do I know which answers will be understood and which won't? SoSick hasn't expressed difficulties with the answers, so what's the problem?
You've been shown a lot of evidence for evolution here. Repeating inaccuracies like this does not make them come true.
If by "this", you refer to your previous sentence, I fully agree.
Same as above. Repeated assertions, no evidence, even though you have been shown how the evidence for evolution is not circular.
On the contrary, it was I who listed the things that could potentially be used in non-circular tests. A big help you were! I don't recall you nominating any evidence for
any of the three boxes.
Show me an example of a scientist who is confused and who clearly thinks that genetics=evolution.
Why? It's not like you'd care.
It's just another variation on homology: see these things look alike!
No it isn't, and if you think that all homology means is that things look alike, you need to look up
homology.
First of all, the definition you linked to includes
any similarity. "Looks alike" is a similarity. So are "sounds alike" and "smells alike".
But even so, your straw man is inexcusable. I clearly stated
"I'll tell you something more. It doesn't even matter how much things actually are alike. Both the telephone and the radio were invented almost simultaneously by different inventors. There have been others as well. Being alike doesn't mean things share a common source. Only history can identify sources. Fantasy can never accomplish this."
That's out-of-context quoting at its worst. And all anyone has to do is scroll up the page. At EvC I'd likely be suspended (at least warned & insulted) for calling you on it. Wonder what Russ'll say if you whine to him...
You think scientists are pretty stupid, don't you? You didn't answer my question about why you won't discuss this topic with them on EvC. Why don't you go there and tell them how stupid their science is?
I have already explained twice why I no longer participate on EvC. Why do you pretend otherwise. And what makes you think EvC's evolutionists are "scientists"?
They don't even buy their own argument, except when it suits them.
Evidence?
Are you blind? I mentioned the bees and the flies that look just like them. Scroll up if you doubt this.
More rubbish. "Nested hierarchy" is the modern evospeak term. Talkdeceptions freely admits any group of objects can be arranged in a "nested hierarchy". I've seen it done - it's easy.
This is news to me, and I've been reading about nested heirarchies. Please explain why you think this is a lie in terms of evolution.
, of course. Note the very title is a lie. There's no "prediction". They had trees drawn up before Darwin even, so it's tad late to predict them. And it says
Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy.
Familiar?
It got a lot of atheists motivated to get out & investigate things. Many of their conclusions were wrong, but a lot of data was collected. Shoot - most of their discoveries support the truth, but they manage to miss it.
Please substantiate these vague assertions.
Since when are you interested in history?
