Evolution Facts

[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