(April 7, 2016 at 11:10 am)Esquilax Wrote:(April 7, 2016 at 10:54 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It analogous to what was given for the opposing view given (it seems that you don't want a fair playing field).... And if you don't think that common descent evolution is based largely on genetic and structural similarities, then I suggest you do some reading.
If you don't see a considerable difference between "here is a mountain of scientific data, collected over more than a century, establishing a correlation between genetics and morphology, which, along with X, Y, and Z, leads us to conclude common ancestry," and "if you saw a watch on the beach, you'd just know it was designed," then I don't know what to tell you.
I don't disagree, that their is a correlation between genetics and morphology. What I disagree with, is the representation that is being given (and not equally). It seems fair, that if an overly simplified explanation is going to be given for the one, then I can do it too. So far, it seems we have X,Y,and Z vs the intuitive knowledge, that a watch didn't just naturally fall into place from physical forces plus chance to wind up on the beach.