"When you can explain HOW it works, then we will both know who was using distortions and lies.So far...."
To finish your sentence, if I may:
"So far...Darwinism has been totally unable to prove its contentions, so it has had to revert to hoaxes like "Piltdown Man", and bungling 'evidence' such as the "Galapigos finch" dud.
"Evolution" isn't a science, it's a political, anti-religion movement that carries on in the atheist, Bible bashing traditions of its greatest contributor, Charles Darwin, and his accomplice, Huxley.
Evolution is the factual knowledge that all life forms on Earth have changed over time. That is an absolute fact and can not be denied.
If you are an exact copy of your Mother and Father, then please raise your hand. You will be the first biological organism in history to do so.
Anyone that dares to state that life forms on Earth have not changed over time, is using deception and lies for their own personal goals.
You and others have offered an alternative theory of how biological changes in life occur on Earth. I and others would like to know HOW this alternative theory of yours works.
Your first detected lie, was the statement that biological life on Earth does not change over time. How do you explain this deception?
so it has had to revert to hoaxes like "Piltdown Man", and bungling 'evidence' such as the "Galapigos finch" dud. So which is this:
hoax or bungle?
Source
You know, all you, or the DI, or AiG, or any other ID-er or creationist has to do is find an ERV that is shared by two primates in a way that doesn't fit the phylogenetic tree.
But you can't.
"Evolution" isn't a science, it's a political, anti-religion movement that carries on in the atheist, Bible bashing traditions...
So how do you explain the above chart without invoking common descent?
Are you willing to claim that the hypothetical designer is constrained by the rule that any ERV in both new world and old world monkeys must also be in every species of ape, including ourselves?
By the rule that any ERV in both orangutans and gibbons, which live in Asia must also be in every species of African ape, including ourselves?
If the hypothetical designer is constrained by the rules summarized in the diagram, why? Explain in detail.
If it isn't, then why is nature?
This is just the primates. The same sort of rules apply everywhere: artiodactyls, carnivores, you name it.
How many examples does it take until "common descent" seems reasonable?