Question for the theist

[John V]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...ders.shtml

So what?

So, my opponent thinks that morphological and genetic analyses lead to the same evolutionary relationships, and this is further evidence that he's wrong.

More importantly, you found a refinement of a tree based on genetic evidence that superceded the morphological observations; yes, that seems about right. Like I said, they don't produce precisely the same results, and the advent of genetic typing will refine our views of the tree of life, as it should do, but at best all you've presented here is an example of convergent evolution that adds to our understanding.

No, I did not find refinement, or results that aren't precisely the same. I found results which are totally inconsistent with the accepted classification. You think it seems about right, but the researcher said the results were stunningly different than what we anticipated.

I'm presenting evidence, and you're denying it. Ironically that's what I'm being accused of.

Sorry, but "uncertain," is not the same as "incorrect," and showing an example of science learning something new is not evidence for the claim you put forward.

Yes, this certainly is evidence supporting my claim that morphologic and genetic analyses indicate different evolutionary relationships, so different that they're called "totally inconsistent" and "stunningly different."