Evolutionary Tree

[SteveII]

The fact that the phylogenetic tree is not as predicted and has problems matching the data to the theory means there is still much to learn and still much to prove to get 'common ancestry' to the point where we know how it works. If we don't know how it works how can you call it a fact? If common ancestry is not a fact and still only a theory, then the big picture of evolution (defined as end-to-end explanation of the diversity of life, common ancestry, decent with modifications) is also not a fact, but only a theory. Is that a fair assessment?

If you want a link:

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

That is what I ask theists all the time. If I ask how the world came into being, they come back with a relatively simple, "God created it." Ask them for facts, and they will seldom bring anything to the table apart from the usual lines spouted by everyone else who is linked with any religion in this world. So, if "God created the earth", and you cannot bring facts to the table, this in itself is a "theory", and in this "theory", the definition is "hunch", a "notion", a "prescience", or why not "funny feeling", instead. You'll be surprised to find the antonyms of this:

"Knowledge", "Trust", "Reason", "Proof", "Truth", etc etc.

So, you have a "funny feeling", that God created the earth and all beings too. You are not certain of this. 

I have a link just for you and perhaps other theists (I don't know if you are a theist or not so, apologies in advance if you are not)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

Did I call anything related to God creating the world a 'fact'? No, so you are answering my question with "you don't have any facts either"?