Question for the theist

[Rampant.A.I.]

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

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what you accused your opponent of thinking, and he just didn't pick you up on your wording. Of course, he can speak for himself and, given that I disagree with the point you're attempting to disprove too, I don't see much point in bringing that up to me.

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.

As I said, genetic discoveries can and should supersede the earlier morphological ones where applicable; that's just a process of learning new things using all of our methods for doing so, rather than one at a time. Morphology is a good start, but as we've known for quite a while, the evolutionary lineages of various species aren't as clear as just what looks like what.

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

Oh, not at all: I accept that the evidence is there, I just disagree the extent to which it reflects upon the rest of evolutionary biology. What you linked to is called learning, not some kind of invalidation of the fact that morphology and genetics show evidence consistent with current evolutionary theory.

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."

I know that cherry picking comes easily to you, but I did actually read the entire link, and not just the few words you want me to focus on. You're not going to convince anyone that morphology and genetics show completely different things just because some species of salamanders had to be redistributed along the branches of their corner of taxonomy.

Thank God we have Alpha Male to interpret the consensus, and let us know almost every scientist worldwide is wrong about evolution.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_..._evolution

Seems he'd better start emailing Nobel Prize winners and scientists to let them know his competing theory, if he has one other than "I don't get how your research is accurate"

---

I have a problem with people trying to poke holes in existing science, as though that validates some other thing.

I didn't claim that the error in his position validates some other thing. You're reading that into my posts.

A more direct route through this conversation would've just been to provide evidence for your initial claim.

That's what I'm saying: instead of discussing evolution, you're just sat here providing problems with it, which is counter-productive given that you did have a claim, in the beginning.

My initial claim in the beginning was:
Most creationist models include some evolution.

Do you really dispute this, or are you referring to something else?

And yet, you haven't presented a single theory for criticism and peer review, you just keep asking for proof of a negative, that ID is invalid.

Ship's already sailed on that one.

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[25] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[26][27]

Anyone actually involved in science seems to know ID is just creationist propaganda:

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[28] pseudoscience,[29][30] or junk science.[31][32] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[33]

All you've done is repeatedly announce skepticism and display ignorance of basic biology, while reinforcing how evolutionary biology is constantly being tested and revised, yet remains the only valid theory.