question for those who reject biological evolution

[Pogo]

My mistake I forgot that you don't accept the testimony of scientists in peer reviewed papers as evidence.... So no I don't have evidence

So you can't understand the papers you claim support you that in fact do not.
Surprise Surprise your testimony is worthless.

Yes same mutations, that is what the article says/implies ...

No that is what you think it says in your ignorance, but they have constructed genetic trees using the Prestin protein amongst the microbats that echolocate. they also constructed trees using the various cetaceans. However here is your problem, they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.
BTW, to find this info, you need to use that number link at the end of the Wikipedia proof text you copied which will take you to the actual paper where they have pictures of the trees with colors and comments to explain why they change when you add different cetacean Prestin protein molecules into the analysis.

Thus ends today's lesson.

 

[leroy]

So you can't understand the papers you claim support you that in fact do not.
Surprise Surprise your testimony is worthless.

No that is what you think it says in your ignorance, but they have constructed genetic trees using the Prestin protein amongst the microbats that echolocate. they also constructed trees using the various cetaceans. However here is your problem, they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.
BTW, to find this info, you need to use that number link at the end of the Wikipedia proof text you copied which will take you to the actual paper where they have pictures of the trees with colors and comments to explain why they change when you add different cetacean Prestin protein molecules into the analysis.

Thus ends today's lesson.

they have trees not sticks and if they had the same mutations they wouldn't be trees.

And are you going to support your claim (in red) ? or should I accept your testimony and just your testimony, as evidence?

 

[Pogo]

And are you going to support your claim (in red) ? or should I accept your testimony and just your testimony, as evidence?

No I am not going to explain to you what genetic trees are, there is a basic level of understanding necessary to hold an intelligent conversation and you don't have it as evidenced by this question.

 

[leroy]

No I am not going to explain to you what genetic trees are, there is a basic level of understanding necessary to hold an intelligent conversation and you don't have it as evidenced by this question.

You were not asked to explain trees, you were asked to support your assertion

 

[Pogo]

You were not asked to explain trees, you were asked to support your assertion

@leroy, it is not an assertion, it is a fundamental fact about trees that you don't know. LOL

 

[leroy]

@leroy, it is not an assertion, it is a fundamental fact about trees that you don't know. LOL

Ok added to the large list of unsupported claims made by you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing, absolutely nothing proves the theory of evolution as touted by Darwinists.

Which "darwinists" are claiming that a scientific theory has been proven?

Bats are still bats, gorillas after all these years are still gorillas

Funny. I just wrote you a post in another thread where I pointed out to you how you keep repeating this nonsense eventhough it has been explained to you countless times how it is in error.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

Nothing proves, shows, or demonstrates the process of evolution as touted by those who believe in it as actual occurrence, evolutionists' theories aside.

Scientific theories are never proven. Only supported.
And in science, evolution is among the best supported, if not THE best supported, theory accross all fields of science.

We know more about evolution then we know about atoms, germs causing desease, gravity, plate tectonics, relativity,,...

So if you are going to argue that the support for evolution is "insufficient" to accept it, then to be consistent you are going to have to reject ALL scientific theories, because none of them is better supported then evolution is.

DNA/RNA, life forms looking similar -- bonobos and chimpanzees swinging from limb to limb do not relate to what is considered by some as the actuality of evolution.

If you think that "bonobos and chimps both swinging from limb to limb" is the extent of the evidence for the theory, or a representative example of the quality of the evidence, then it is no wonder you remain in this state of perpetual ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes? and why don't you believe in God when so many of your friends here who believe in the process of evolution claim to believe in God?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say his disbelief in gods is not related to his acceptance of evolution theory....

 

[Valjean]

My age aside, when I think about what's packed in a cell in the womb, I wonder if you can explain how it happened. Biologically speaking, of course. Which is certainly related to evolution. the theory of.

Yes! That's what science does, it explains each step of a process, it outlines the chain of chemical and physical reactions that led to specific forms and functions.. It arrives at all this by observation and testing, not by faith in mythology.

Science's job is to explain how, not who. Yes, biochemistry is complicated, but there are explanations of the steps to intricacy. Ignorance of these is not evidence of God or intentional design. It's evidence of poor basic education.
You express incredulity at the complexity of biology and of nature. "Goddidit" does not address this complexity. Unlike science it explains nothing.
So why are theists satisfied with it? Why is their incredulity not focused on the supposèd divine "mechanism?"

Judging by the arguments from ignorance I see expressed so often, plus the ignorance of basic chemistry and biology I see constantly expressed, chemistry and biology are no longer taught in high school.

 

[Pogo]

Yes! That's what science does, it explains each step of a process, it outlines the chain of chemical and physical reactions that led to specific forms and functions.. It arrives at all this by observation and testing, not by faith in mythology.

Science's job is to explain how, not who. Yes, biochemistry is complicated, but there are explanations of the steps to intricacy. Ignorance of these is not evidence of God or intentional design. It's evidence of poor basic education.
You express incredulity at the complexity of biology and of nature. "Goddidit" does not address this complexity. Unlike science it explains nothing.
So why are theists satisfied with it? Why is their incredulity not focused on the supposèd divine "mechanism?"

Judging by the arguments from ignorance I see expressed so often, plus the ignorance of basic chemistry and biology I see constantly expressed, chemistry and biology are no longer taught in high school.

I think it is more fear of their "world view" and authority structure being challenged.
The silly part is that they complain when society leaves them behind.