RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
November 28, 2018 at 7:25 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2018 at 7:38 pm by Everena.)
(November 28, 2018 at 6:50 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:(November 28, 2018 at 6:10 pm)Everena Wrote: So what is your take on these recent findings?
Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.
"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.
(November 28, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.(November 28, 2018 at 7:00 pm)CDF47 Wrote: That case was a joke and should have never happened.
What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:
"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
(November 28, 2018 at 7:10 pm)Everena Wrote: That is what this says, yes
Animals: 7.77 million (12% described)
So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...
Quote:No one's arguing microevolution, like I just said. And yes I know that already, but thanks anyway.
Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.
(November 28, 2018 at 7:25 pm)Everena Wrote:(November 28, 2018 at 6:50 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Unsurprising. Have you read any of it? I'm doubting it since the paper talks about speciation at great length.
"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
Speciation is deceptively named. It could just as easily be called adaption and none of it proves at all that one species has ever turned into an entirely different species.
(November 28, 2018 at 7:14 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: What? You mean the perjury by the ID proponents? The judge agrees with you:No it sure doesn't. It means changes within the same species, or adaption.
"The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
So you did say that all animals are conscious then. Any time you're ready to apologize for calling me a liar...
Nope. I said there should be a separate classification for all conscious life after you said all animals were not conscious, and you were wrong (again) because there is.
Speciation. That word that I put in giant red letters for you. That means macroevolution. You're citing a paper that describes how macroevolution happens and trying to claim that it says it doesn't. It's like pointing to a duck and saying, "See? I told you so! No birds!"
The definition and what it actually is are two entirely different things. Very deceptive and not honest science. We have no observable evidence of actual speciation because it supposedly occured over millons of years.