I know that species are related--but your underlying assertion--"they arose from them"--is just not borne out as "proof" by any such list. Interesting, indicative, but hardly doctrine. I then pointed out what many people do to evo-shamans--that life dwindles rather than proliferates. Species decrease rather than increase. That there were more "then" and less "now" points to a speciation theory that lacks generative potency.
Each new day brings a story of a new "Eve" of our genetic ancestry, and the evos go into High Ritual Mode to worship their new goddess. A few months later, a new Eve and, with no spraining of cognitive dissonance, seems to be as welcome as the previous, abandoned, Eve was.
That the programming of life swaps around could be some very useful information for applied science--I'd just prefer that the scientists keep their religion to themselves.
A closed mind gathers no thought.
You sought to persuade through overkill?
No, I was showing a pattern in the evidence.
I know that species are related--but your underlying assertion--"they arose from them"--is just not borne out as "proof" by any such list.
Not all by itself, no. In interlocking relation to dozens of other lines of evidence, yes.
Interesting, indicative, but hardly doctrine.
See above.
I then pointed out what many people do to evo-shamans--
Oh boy, more petulant, pointless namecalling. How typical.
that life dwindles rather than proliferates.
That's not what the evidence clearly indicates, but if you want to cling to your fantasies, go for it.
Species decrease rather than increase.
Please do not present your fantasies as if they were fact, or were supported by the evidence. They are not.
That there were more "then" and less "now" points to a speciation theory that lacks generative potency.
It would if that were the case, but since you're just MAKING IT UP, I'd say that it actually rather indicates the paucity of your own position.
Hint: How many, say, bird species were there ~200 million years ago? Zero. How many are there now? Over 10,000.
Bigger hints:
Extinction, diversity and survivorship of taxa in the fossil recordBiodiversity *increases* over time.
Each new day brings a story of a new "Eve" of our genetic ancestry, and the evos go into High Ritual Mode to worship their new goddess. A few months later, a new Eve and, with no spraining of cognitive dissonance, seems to be as welcome as the previous, abandoned, Eve was.
What are you babbling about here? Give a *specific* example, with links or citations, of an alleged "new story" which you feel should require "spraining of cognitive dissonance", and/or similar documentation for what you mumble is a "previous, abandoned, Eve". In other words, please demonstrate that you even know what in the hell you're talking about.
That the programming of life swaps around could be some very useful information for applied science--
Huh? Again, *try* to be coherent, and give *specific* examples for a change, don't just ramble in a vague fashion and then spew empty platitudes like:
I'd just prefer that the scientists keep their religion to themselves.
Well in that regard, you have nothing to worry about. Evolutionary biology is not a religion. If it *seems* like it to you, then you quite simply don't actually understand it.