(August 19, 2016 at 1:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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
Did you even read your own link and understand it? Doubtful, your delusion is in the way.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
