Somehow you missed the mountains of evidence here:
[TABLE="class: outline, width: 1322"]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Introduction
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific MethodPhylogenetics introduction
- Universal Common Descent Defined
- Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
- What Counts as Scientific Evidence
- Other Explanations for the Biology
- How to Cite This Document
[/TD]
- Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
- Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
- Statistical support for phylogenies
- Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
- Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
[/TD]
- Unity of life
- Nested hierarchies
- Convergence of independent phylogenies
- Transitional forms
- Chronology of common ancestors
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 2. Past history
[/TD]
- Anatomical vestiges
- Atavisms
- Molecular vestiges
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
[/TD]
- Anatomical parahomology
- Molecular parahomology
- Anatomical convergence
- Molecular convergence
- Anatomical suboptimal function
- Molecular suboptimal function
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 4. Molecular evidence
[/TD]
- Protein functional redundancy
- DNA functional redundancy
- Transposons
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Endogenous retroviruses
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 5. Change
Closing remarks[/TD]
- Genetic
- Morphological
- Functional
- The strange past
- Stages of speciation
- Speciation events
- Morphological rates
- Genetic rates
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Take some time to familiarize yourself with it instead of being willfully ignorant.
Somehow you missed the mountains of evidence here:
[TABLE="class: outline, width: 1322"]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Introduction
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific MethodPhylogenetics introduction
- Universal Common Descent Defined
- Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
- What Counts as Scientific Evidence
- Other Explanations for the Biology
- How to Cite This Document
[/TD]
- Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
- Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
- Statistical support for phylogenies
- Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
- Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
[/TD]
- Unity of life
- Nested hierarchies
- Convergence of independent phylogenies
- Transitional forms
- Chronology of common ancestors
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 2. Past history
[/TD]
- Anatomical vestiges
- Atavisms
- Molecular vestiges
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
[/TD]
- Anatomical parahomology
- Molecular parahomology
- Anatomical convergence
- Molecular convergence
- Anatomical suboptimal function
- Molecular suboptimal function
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 4. Molecular evidence
[/TD]
- Protein functional redundancy
- DNA functional redundancy
- Transposons
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Endogenous retroviruses
[TD="class: outline33, align: left"]Part 5. Change
Closing remarks[/TD]
- Genetic
- Morphological
- Functional
- The strange past
- Stages of speciation
- Speciation events
- Morphological rates
- Genetic rates
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Take some time to familiarize yourself with it instead of being willfully ignorant.
I reviewed these things. Did you? Do you even know what that's all about? You throw up an article full of tons of prompts full of articles, and say those prove your point? Apparently (obviously) you don't know the difference between evidence and proof. Murder trials for example? You can have tons of evidence, but if it doesn't prove anything for sure? It's worthless. Obviously you didn't read my earlier post about this. You're one of those people that only see their side of an issue. Again, I read through a few of those, enough to know what they involve.
I want proof. I don't believe scientific claims until I see proof. You obviously didn't take to heart what I wrote about my Ecology teacher? What he said about theories? Who has a doctorate in Ecology? If you take address nothing I say, why should I address your silly accusations? Willfully ignorant? Did I mention that I've taken many science courses in secular universities? Oh yeah, I did. It is you that is remaining willfully ignorant because you're putting all your faith in this theory, along with those that support it.
so you don't actually have a clue?
don't need the videos, actually have a degree in Biology. just wanted to see if you were being honest or a parrot.
would you really like a lesson about the platypus?
I have more articles on human migrational patterns but you won't be able to access them without a password since they are actually published in scienitific journals and not just the internet.
it almost midnight and you still haven't any of the points I asked you to.
the animals of Australia are explained by the bottleneck effect.
if you truly understood evolution and the terms posted above, I wouldn't have to explain how animals could have migrated from one point of origin such as the Middle east to Australia and resulted in the native animals there.
however I find that a lot of people just post articles but never bother really reading and understanding what is being said in any of the articles.
I love Jesus and that is good enough for me![]()
If these marsupial fossils are 125 million years old did the flood happen
before or after?
I've always heard that one of the basic laws of physics basically says, "things tend to fall apart--not put themselves together." Have you stopped to consider the phenomenal improbability involved in this supposedly entirely uphill climb into mere existence you're striving to believe in? Let alone a single-celled organism multiplying, separating, and evoluting to such a massive degree, virtually thousands upon thousands of distinctive species eventually come into play? You're asking me to believe something of which the chances involved demand odds beyond the number scale. It's gonna take you phenomenally more faith to believe in this theory than it does in a divine creator. You want to put your money on that horse? You go right ahead. I'll keep mine.
By the way, where are these 29+evidences you speak of? I keep looking and looking at your posts, and can't find a single one.
What proof? I saw no proof in that article whatsoever! I kept searching and searching, but saw nothing. There is evidence, true. But there's no proof! The front door left open is evidence my friend left my house by my front door. But the back door closed doesn't mean he didn't leave that way! All variables must be weighed out, and I do mean ALL applicable variables before a theory graduates to a recognized fact. I don't get this. People apparently believe what they want to OBVIOUSLY even if takes an impossible amount of faith to believe in it; and in this case, that obviously includes science. You've ignored all arguments presented to you and continue to doggedly defend that which is nothing more than a theory. Potential evidence is not proof that a theory is a fact! There's no point in debating something with someone that refuses to acknowledge any points presented to them other than to brush them off without ever addressing anything other than their own side of the argument. *sigh*
Thanks for further proving evolution is true.
I am a female and I don't have faith in science. I am actually looking at the evidence
and trying to understand it. Faith is defined as belief without evidence.
ALL applicable variables before a theory graduates to a recognized fact.
come back when you can talk about all the "proof" you have posted
and hopefully by then you will have lost the "go talk to somebody else because I'm not really qualified to talk about the concepts I claim to believe in but still know I'm RIGHT and everyone else is just ignorant" attitude.
I think you mean to say that "ALL applicable variables before a theory graduates to a recognized scientific law."
Evolution is still a theory not accept as a Law. like the Law of aerodynamics or the Law of gravity.
I think you mean to say that "ALL applicable variables before a theory graduates to a recognized scientific law."
Evolution is still a theory not accept as a Law. like the Law of aerodynamics or the Law of gravity.