“If you mean I didn’t discuss God”
No I don’t mean that. This is another example of a weird non-sequitur. Nothing I said would merit such a response or thought.
“I don’t think most people understand what science actually is and what it does.”
I agree and in as nice a way as possible I am saying this applies to you also.
I’ve noticed in this “debate” between evolution and creation that most coming down on the “pro-science” side don’t understand science any better than the creationists.
And you do? You said, “If their theory is worth anything, it should be able to predict relations of currently existing species.” I answered Thet they could. As you stated, that is comparative genomics which deals with relationships of existent species and, by studying gene sequences which might show a common ancestry. However, at some point, you have to place fossils in an evolutionary linage by morphology.
All amphibians are in the same linage. Comparative genomics can tell you that fish and amphibians share a common ancestor and give information as to when. Morphology narrows down which fossils might be that ancestor and what the physical adaptations looked like. So comparative genomics can tell you what rocks age wise to look in. That’s close to how tiktaalik was found.