Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream
The shared traits are ASSUMED to arise from an evolutionary relationship and often times no, repeat NO, DNA is available.
Cladograms can be constructed using such features as hair or the lack of it, etc. and such are again ASSUMED to have been derived so it is just as I said.
I misrepresent nothing at all, but if it is simply too difficult for you to understand I'll try to use smaller words or you can use the google button.

Shall I break it down to the “See the dog run, see the dog jump” level for you?

98 posted on 11/19/2009 9:36:20 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]


To: count-your-change
Hardly necessary as I have taken graduate level courses in molecular evolution and obviously understand the subject far better than you.

To claim that cladograms are based upon and confirmed by morphological features alone is to misrepresent the state of the science.

But creationists must misrepresent science as a necessity, as we are seeing.

110 posted on 11/20/2009 6:02:24 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson