Is anyone surprised that DNA reveals the design of Chimpanzees is closer to man than Ratfish? NO. Not evolutionists, not creationist, not anybody with two eyes who have ever seen both.
But it doesn't answer the question of how ratfish, chimps and man got here. All evolutionists have is an assumption.
Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact. Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.
Evolutionists have played several games to arrive at their current theory. You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data. You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction. If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution". And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.
I appreciate your efforts, DannyT, but the darwinites will treat you like the church treated heretics. Maybe a concentration camp is preferable to burning at the stake.
I certainly never said otherwise. The notion of Common Design merely attributes the existence of everything to a deity. Everything is what it is regardless.
All evolutionists have is an assumption.
Umm.. No, they have a tremendous framework of supporting evidence. But, you already have been informed of that multiple times.
Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact.
That's the way all sciences work and you can say that about any science. That's what science is. It's a bit sad that you don't comprehend that.
Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.
You claim so, and no one, including myself, appears to think it worthwhile to waste time on a futile endeavor to educate you otherwise.
You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data.
What matches the data becomes scientific theory. That happens to be evolution. Creationism has thrown out plenty of theories as well. They consistently haven't matched the data. That's why you are left with untestable supernatural conjecture and nothing more.
You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction.
The prediction actually preceded the observation. By contrast, the long-standing prediction of creationism was contrary to what has since been observed, and so has been tossed out and replaced by unverifiable, unfalsifiable ID.
If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution".
That's how science works. It adjusts to match the factual evidence as best it can. By contrast, creationism doesn't care about facts.
And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.
Umm.. no. Those things do then become "predictions" as if they were valid all along - that's what reality is, and science is about describing reality - but they are not presented as though they had been thought of all along. The development of evolutionary theory is well-known and hardly kept a secret from anyone.
To be absolutely precise, science is about describing verisimilitude.