[[DNA evidence specifically rules out common design : )
]]
Good bye- It does no such thing- and hte evidnece does not show where ‘species diverged’- it shows that common design results in common genetic vulnerabilites- that’s all- Going beyond hte science by claiming anything more isn’t science, it’s projecting a religious hypothesis
A religious idea I might add that contradicts the evidences, and violates laws- not just in moot instances- but every major step of the way- trillions of times- but if you wish to beleive macroevolution somehow overcame these serious defects to the hypothesis, then fine, but don’t tell me the evidneces ‘rule out common design’ when they do no such hting.
What is genetic vulnerabilities in terms of our discussion of genetic divergence? I think I have to hear this to believe it : )
Going beyond hte science by claiming anything more isn’t science, it’s projecting a religious hypothesis
No it is what you do and it is called projection.
Did you know that with DNA samples you can trace your family history? In fact you can trace your own history back to a common ancestor with chimpanzees and other great apes? Science is on the verge of even being able to bring that common ancestor back to life : ) Does it bother you that Orangutans are closely related to you? Or do you the zoo keepers look twice at your uncle Ned?
But we have diverged from the original argument. What is you evidence supporting ID? If you don't have any evidence just say so? Please don't just say that there is evidence, but you don't know where it is.
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting : )