[[Are you trying to say that organisms with very different phenotypes also have very different genomes? I don’t think so. There are so many genetic similarities among dissimilar organisms that they had to move away from the old system of classification.]]
“They” Can do whatever they like- the ‘similarities’ do NOT take into account hte billions and billions of DISSIMILARITIES- “They” can deny common design all they like, but similarities just furhter point to common design while hte DISSIMILARITIES also strongly indicate uniqueneses of kinds- these dissimilarites are what seperate kinds, and furthermore, species own unique species specific parameters PREVENT the kinds of continuities macroevolutionists claim happened in the ‘past at some point’ despite a complete lack of evidence to support htis claim-
[[There is no way to prove evolution but it is logical and (nearly) complete enough to serve as a suitable explaination if and when a better explaination arrives.]]
Actually NO it isn’t! It DEFIES natural laws, biological, mathematical, and chemical laws- the very laws that are the underpinnings of hte very science that ignores the laws- quite hte contradiction there dont’chathink?
I’m still confused about what a “kind” is but hopefully my last post will point some things out.
“It DEFIES natural laws, biological, mathematical, and chemical laws”
Ok, which ones? I don’t see it. Are you referring to the second law of thermodynamics? That states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is supplied with energy in the form of solar radiation. As a result, Earth is not an isolated system of heat transfer.