Evolution Facts

[The Grand Nudger]

You apparently don't give a fuck about unsupportable hyperbole from evolutionists, either. No, actually not giving a fuck about such would be an improvement. You actually jump in to defend it.

The exception would be?

I could point out the blatant flip of the burden of proof, but it's easier just to go ahead and give you an example. They come along pretty regularly.
Here's a recent one.

The exception would be?

[Esquilax]

See, this is why I don't do this with some people. Now we're discussing word choices, not evolution. Is derpy. And a tad ironic, being that it was started by the same guy who took Luckie to task for not discussing evolution earlier. Maybe I just wasn't aware of how much highly selective readings of people's sentences means to biology.

[The Grand Nudger]

We're not discussing word choices -or- evolution, you're being too kind..lol.

[John V]

Er, consensus tree of life had the nervous system evolving once, after sponges. New DNA study suggests nervous system developed twice, or developed prior to sponges and sponges subsequently lost nerves and muscles. Either way, existing tree of life not confirmed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Grasp harder.

[John V]

See, this is why I don't do this with some people. Now we're discussing word choices, not evolution. Is derpy. And a tad ironic, being that it was started by the same guy who took Luckie to task for not discussing evolution earlier. Maybe I just wasn't aware of how much highly selective readings of people's sentences means to biology.

If you all agree that "without exception" was unsupportable, just say so, and this line of discussion will close.

[coldwx]

You should know by now that I don't give a fuck about creatards and their disingenuous bullshit.

You apparently don't give a fuck about unsupportable hyperbole from evolutionists, either. No, actually not giving a fuck about such would be an improvement. You actually jump in to defend it.

You either lead yourself to knowledge or remain in ignorance. Don't tell me what something implies, just point to a single exception. Taxonomy doesn't have the ability to comment on common descent, until some uncommon taxonomy is found.

Try again.

I could point out the blatant flip of the burden of proof, but it's easier just to go ahead and give you an example. They come along pretty regularly.
Here's a recent one.

Strange animals may have their own distinct nervous system.

Confusion reigns at the base of the animal family tree.

If you think this suggests that early animals started out simple and gradually evolved new features, and things like sponges branched off before they were added, you wouldn't be alone. Over the years, lots of researchers argued the same thing. But a recent genome sequence indicated that the oldest branch of the animal family tree that led to the comb jellies, with muscles, nerves, and tentacles, were an older branch than sponges. Now with a new paper on the comb jelly, researchers are starting to argue over what this actually tells us about the earliest animals.

Cue the "But...but...the authors still believe in evolution" responses.

As I stated, exceptions do not necessarily point to invalidation. It simply means new hypothesis are posited. If the goal is simply to prove that there are exceptions, fine. That does not in any way overturn the common ancestor argument or that the overwhelming evidence of DNA points to evolution. The links below should provide some insight into the explanation to this "exception".

LINK

LINK

LINK

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I just don't have as much time as you guys have in your hands to be going over hundreds of arguments and explaining them all.

Contradicts

I see lots of lies and twists on reports about evolution. They also like to make it so complicated so the average person will not understand and just believe because it sounds scientific. Evolution is dead, there is more than enough proof of a intelligent designer, you just not looking in the right place.

You haven't got time to research a topic but have already formed opinions and conclusions about it.

Sorry to say buddy but evolution is a complicated subject that can only be simplified so much. That's why there are people who have dedicated their entire lives to researching and investigating it.

Great thing about scientific and academic enquiry is that it is never static. Our knowledge and understanding increases as we ourselves evolve.

As for your unsupported and demonstrably erroneous statement that evolution is dead. Never before have I seen someone so foolishly assert something as right that is so demonstrably false.

[John V]

Here's one on birds.

This new tree contains several notable surprises. For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat, bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.

In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders in earlier phylogenies of birds. "That shows you how inconsistent it has been," says Reddy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, sorry, tree doesn't look to have fallen over yet in the face of your well researched onslaught. That's okay. It's a sturdy tree. If a billion years on this rock hasn't offed it, its unlikely that you'll be able to alpha.