Replies

This is a frequently repeated error. The single common tree of life of ribosomal RNA is strong scientific evidence for universal common descent.

Wow. I did not know we have RNA for extinct creatures millions of years old that we supposedly evolved from. Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.

You are quite well aware there is massive genomic and fossil evidence that we descended from single-celled creatures, and massive genomic evidence that the process was mutation coupled with natural selction.

There is data and fossils out there, it is just the erroneous and ridiculous conclusions the scientists come to that are in error.

You can criticize what you want. However, you would, if you were smart, leave the teaching of biology to people who know some biology. If the above is any indication, your criticism would come from the standpoint of unusual ignorance and/or prejudice.

I am looking from the philosophical perspective. Since evolutionists violate all the rules of logic when coming to their conclusions, make logical fallacies right and left, assume what they are trying to prove (universal common descent), etc. those arguments can be criticized by any or all critical thinkers.

Look, if you want to believe the african ant siafu evolved in some unguided process from a single celled creature over millions of years, you are welcome to. There is, however, no trail of DNA or fossil evidence between that ant and the first life forms, so you will have to believe it on faith.

And to get to a singularity in the beginning of life is purely a faith based belief, since noone has or ever will have any idea this first life form even consisted of, if indeed life evolved from some single point at all.

One thing I have learned about evolutionists is that they will never acknowledge they do not know it all. That is quite a different attitude from the other sciences. Go find a website on the big bang and you will see the problems with the theory there as well. I have never seen, on the other hand, an evo site that acknowledged even the slightest problem with evolutionary theory. That is telling.

Wow. I did not know we have RNA for extinct creatures millions of years old that we supposedly evolved from

We don't have to have it. If we have many RNA sequences, we can test to a high degree of probability whether those sequences derive by mutation from a common ancestor, and even, in some cases, deduce what the sequence of that common ancestor is.

Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.

I know what statistics is about. It appears to be to you some sort of obscure and vaguely disreputable black magic.

Anyway, it's not 'statistical analysis'. It's inference and logic.

There is data and fossils out there, it is just the erroneous and ridiculous conclusions the scientists come to that are in error.

This is just a rant, without any substance to back it up. You don't understand it, so you hate it.

You've clearly shown you don't know how scientists use genomics to examine universal common descent, so it's hard to see how your condemnation of our logic is worth much.

There is, however, no trail of DNA or fossil evidence between that ant and the first life forms, so you will have to believe it on faith.

We don't need it, as long as we have lots of other organisms derived from the common ancestor. Let me put it in terms you might understand. If you, and all your first cousins have blue eyes, would it be possible for you to deduce the eye color of your grandfather, even if you have never seen him?

Besides, that is all statistical analysis and we all know what statistics is about.

There's a geat little book out called "How to Lie with Statstics" It's still in print as far as I know. It was required reading for one of my college meteorology courses and after reading it you will believe NO *study*, *survey*, or anything. Statistics can be manipulated to *prove* anything, even in science.