Question for the theist

[xr34p3rx]

i gave you evidence, i gave you all that, and i say yet again, you have not done any of that, you dont accept real evidence because of your ignorance. its unbelievable! and yet again, you dont provide anything, shifting the argument like i have not shown anything, you dont agree with it, because you are ignorant

What real evidence have you given?

---

http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/12/14/mo...phylogeny/

Morphology And Molecules Give Fundamentally Conflicting Results For Lizard Phylogeny

This is a little far afield for anole aficionados, but recent years have seen a revolution in our picture of lizard (including snake) phylogeny. Traditionally, based on morphological analysis, lizards were thought to split into two groups, the iguanians (including anoles, other iguanids, agamids, and chameleons) and scleroglossans (everything else, including snakes). However, starting with a paper by Townsend et al. in 2004, a different picture emerged in which iguanians were nested high in lizard phylogeny, closely related to anguimorphs (such as alligator lizards, gila monsters, and monitors) and snakes. A series of subsequent studies came to essentially the same conclusion, most recently the output of the “Deep Scaly” NSF Tree of Life project which sequenced DNA from 44 genes.

I think that most of the field had come to accept that the molecular tree was correct. But along comes a paper by the morphology team of Deep Scaly, a remarkable analysis in which 194 species were all micro-CT scanned and examined in others ways, leading to a data set of more than 600 morphological characters, 247 never previously used in phylogenetic studies. Analyzed with state-of-the-art methods, the results resoundingly support the original morphological tree and give absolutely no morphological support for the new molecular tree. The authors do an excellent job in not being strident in insisting that the morphological tree is correct, but just highlighting how very unusual morphological evolution must have been if the molecular tree is correct. Moreover, the authors note that based on analyses including the molecular data, the “Archaeopteryx” of squamates, Huehuecuetzpalli mixtecus, is placed high in the phylogeny, rather than in the basal position where morphology has long placed it. If, indeed, the molecules are right, what does that say about our ability to ever reliably place fossil species in a phylogeny?

xr34p3rx, if you click on the link the article has a picture that will help you understand the problem.

seriously john, you really need to point out what you havent. Answer the following questions one by one okay? if you keep denying evidence but dont define what evidence is to you, then we cant understand each other and its just a big cat fight.

1) What is evidence to you? Define evidence.
2) Do you accept or deny evolution and or creationism as a whole, or cherry pick what you like about the theory and the belief (creationism, since it isnt a theory).
3) Do you believe in intelligent design? Hence you made it seem like you did in a previous post and since you said you accept certain things from both sides.
4) What do you accept about evolution?
5) What do you accept about creationism?
6) How do you interpret evolution and evidence based on what you agree about it?
7) How do you interpret creationism since you also cherry pick it?

until you answer these straight forward, there is going to be mass confusion between us as it already seems, dont you agree?

and to reply to your previous post, i in fact did provide evidence (Here), but we will get back to that later after you answer my questions. And i also never said anything about morphing, i have no idea where you got that from.