[GodGunsGuts]

==Let’s face it, you would have exactly the same comments on his theory if he had been at the top of his med school graduating class.

Actually, I would be much harder on him if he had actually been a trained scientist. Which, of course, he was not. Origins was nothing more than a long argument based on almost zero scientific evidence. Here is Darwood's so-called "tree of life" from origins. Care to identify the data points?

[allmendream]

Much like Einstein, Darwin was a theorist not an experimentalist. He formulated theories rather than collecting data through experimentation.

There have been thousands of phylogenetic “trees” based upon data put together, once we learned to sequence DNA.

Just like with Einstein, when the data came in, it fit with the theory.

Unlike the “devolution” data chart without data that you like to post, this was proposed as a theoretical framework that would match the data. This model fits the data, your devolution data chart was a joke that fit no data, neither was there any proposal to collect data at any point in the future (why would a creationist need data when they already know the answer?).