tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2524256448144715559..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Difference Between Science and EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger161125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11043982139222118852012-07-14T00:00:02.653-07:002012-07-14T00:00:02.653-07:00Veli
A fossil is a biological entity but just at a...Veli<br />A fossil is a biological entity but just at a moment in time.<br />evolution is about time plus creatures changing from this to that.<br />Connecting fossils of the creature is being said by evolution to be demonstrating they evolved from each other.<br />this because they are different but close. this also because of the claim they are separated by a chunk of time.<br /><br />Even if the conclusion was true it still would not be biological evidence.<br />If it was not true it would not be a failing of biological evidence.<br /><br />Its all just a line of reasoning from data points. the process is not demonstrated by the evidence. only the presumptions force a inference on process.<br /><br />In connecting fossils there is no biology going on.<br />this because they are just snapshots and thats all. <br />Fossilism has wrongly been seen as biological evidence for or aghainst evolutionary biology.<br />a great flaw of logic.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2385719681248534252012-07-13T21:53:43.074-07:002012-07-13T21:53:43.074-07:00Vis plastica, velikovskys. Vis plastica.Vis plastica, velikovskys. Vis plastica.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91600341904093017802012-07-13T20:00:55.006-07:002012-07-13T20:00:55.006-07:00People who live in glass houses should not bring u...People who live in glass houses should not bring up logic. It seems a losing argument for YEC ers<br /><br />What in your opinion causes fossil if not a biological form?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7840879198524749182012-07-13T19:55:20.604-07:002012-07-13T19:55:20.604-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24070120064310229382012-07-13T10:39:26.102-07:002012-07-13T10:39:26.102-07:00The Schreaer and Scholtze book had drawings that a...<i>The Schreaer and Scholtze book had drawings that a layman or a teenager would say are the same as Heackel's. Same with the Stanley Miller's book. The real embryos don't look like the drawings.</i><br /><br />Neither of those references are enough to get me to a relevant text-book. Are the ones you are referring to still in print? Do you have full titles?<br /><br />"Similarities" are not considered "proof of evolution", although they might be evidence for common descent. Differences certainly wouldn't be evidence against common descent, any more than differences between adult organisms is.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70937878325567442652012-07-13T08:43:04.861-07:002012-07-13T08:43:04.861-07:00No excuse:
Genetic exchange in Salmonella
Norton...No excuse:<br /><br /><i>Genetic exchange in Salmonella</i><br /><br />Norton Zinder and Joshua Lederberg<br /><br />J Bacteriol. (<b>1952</b>) 64: 679–699Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73180184519835314252012-07-13T02:11:20.760-07:002012-07-13T02:11:20.760-07:00The evolutionary pattern failed
No, the evolutio...<i>The evolutionary pattern failed </i><br /><br />No, the evolutionary pattern did not fail. It's still there. But what we now see is that, superimposed on that pattern, is a second pattern, in which certain sequences seem to jump lineages.<br /><br />So what do scientists do? They say: OK, we see clear evidence of longitudinal inheritance patterns, but there seems to also to be evidence of sequence transfer that is not longitidinal: what additional mechanism might be responsible for this pattern?<br /><br />Just as discovering that what you thought was a single text is in fact a palimpsest in which a second, fainter, text is discerned at right angles to the first, does not justify ignoring the content of the first text you first assumed was the only text. Rather, you must now account for the second text.<br /><br />And several mechanisms have been discovered for this "HGT" - including viruses, and other symbiotic mechanisms. These are not "fairy tales" - they were hypothesised mechanisms now actually supported by good data.<br /><br /><i>and so evolutionists must turn to some complicated set of known and unknown mechanisms. HGT has been a popular go-to explanation. </i><br /><br />It's not an "explanation" at all. It is simply an addition to the model - the tree still works, but we add to it some cross-branch links at the genetic level (not the phenotypic level, interestingly, and suggestively). The "explanation" part lies in hypotheses to account for those cross-branch links.<br /><br />Viruses are one.<br /><br /><i>But of course HGT itself must have somehow been created by evolution. </i><br /><br />This betrays your muddled thinking. Whatever mechanisms lead to cross-lineage transfer of genetic material certainly must have a <i>cause</i>. That cause might be another organism - e.g. viruses, that themselves evolve, or it might be some discrete event (like one cell ingesting another without killing it, so that hencefore the two reproduce in tandem, each offspring containing the offspring of the other). Or it could be the evolution of an actual mechanism for horizontal transfer because this bestows some reproductive advantage. Sexual reproduction, for instance, is a kind of HGT - recombination moves material from one gamete to the other, where each are from slightly different lineages.<br /><br /><i>So evolution created those incredible mechanisms when then produced evolution.</i><br /><br />You are equivocating, as usual, with the very word you accuse evolutionists of equivocating with. "Evolution" in the sense of something that "creates" is not the same as "evolution" in the sense of something that is produced. Both are poor usages anyway.<br /><br />Many things result in HGT, and the transferred material may itself produce phenotypic effects that are subject to selection. Moreover, selection can operate at above population-level, and so populations that contain organisms in which HGT mechanisms are present may prove more adaptable because they have an additional source of genetic variance and thus are less likely to go extinct. In other words, organismic features that promote variance in offspring may be selected for at population level.<br /><br />This is complicated, sure, but biologiy is a complex science, and this is a perfectly valid and testable hypothesis. Shapiro has been at the forefront of some of these ideas.<br /><br /><i>With evolution the absurdity continues.</i><br /><br />What continues is your blinkered commitment to not understanding it. And for someone with your background there is no excuse.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10842180651861972502012-07-12T19:48:26.240-07:002012-07-12T19:48:26.240-07:00They don't, how do they ?, provide info etc on...They don't, how do they ?, provide info etc on whether they evolved from/into each other or how evolved!<br />Its been a great flaw to use fossils as BIOLOGICAL evidence for evolution or evidence the fossils are related only over time periods.<br />Even if all this was true its unrelated to biological evidence.<br />its just "evidence" if within accepted presumptions of identity and time.<br />I see all the time evolutionists work from a belief the fossil record is biological evidence for conclusions about evolution.<br />I'm sure the logic class people could put a name to it.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40673936948294949422012-07-12T17:09:24.626-07:002012-07-12T17:09:24.626-07:00Elizebeth:
The Schreaer and Scholtze book had d...Elizebeth: <br /><br />The Schreaer and Scholtze book had drawings that a layman or a teenager would say are the same as Heackel's. Same with the Stanley Miller's book. The real embryos don't look like the drawings.<br /><br />Pedant:<br /><br />If similarities are considered proof of evolution, then differences showed be evidence against evolution. Anyway, the point I was making is that the differences are not mentioned in the textbooks. Why not mention both, and let the students decide for themselves?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28402766973421957642012-07-12T16:14:26.562-07:002012-07-12T16:14:26.562-07:00The "yes, but where does HGT come from?"...The "yes, but where does HGT come from?" comeback is silly. <br /><br />The Standard Model of particle physics relies on the Higgs mechanism to generate masses of many particles. It does not explain where the Higgs field comes from. This is physics beyond the Standard Model, which we do not understand. That nonetheless does not preclude physicists from making predictions, one of which is the existence of a Higgs boson (ripples in the Higgs field created by particle collisions). The Higgs boson has just been observed. <br /><br />We don't understand why there is a Higgs field. It's a hypothesis that explains lots of things within the Standard Model. Experimentally verified. By your logic, this would be a failure.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88588862852534127342012-07-12T16:05:46.812-07:002012-07-12T16:05:46.812-07:00Cornelius, this is sheer nonsense. What do scienti...Cornelius, this is sheer nonsense. What do scientists do when their previous favorite theory fails? They develop a new one that goes beyond the old paradigm. Surprise! <br /><br />I am sure you understand that, so you are likely not arguing against the development of a new theory <i>per se</i>. You just want the old theory scrapped altogether. But don't hold you breath. As anyone familiar with the history of science knows, old theories don't necessarily get thrown into the dustbin. <br /><br />Classical physics failed on more than one occasion. Entirely new—and complex—theories had to be written from scratch. Yet it is still with us. There are lots and lots of examples of that. So get used to it: theory of evolution is here to stay. <br /><br />Your specific complaint is pretty silly. HGT is a known mechanism that has been seen even in animals. It surely did operate during the early development of life, when organisms were much simpler and their genes were not all that well hidden.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12702294061470302392012-07-12T15:49:11.420-07:002012-07-12T15:49:11.420-07:00Oops! Still no mention of universal common descen...Oops! Still no mention of universal common descent.<br /><br />Add on another layer of egg!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86297573879739554572012-07-12T15:35:44.428-07:002012-07-12T15:35:44.428-07:00EL:
Please quote verbatim, with full reference to...EL:<br /><br /><i>Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.</i><br /><br />On page 15 of Darwin’s Ghost, Steve Jones, writes that the changes observed in HIV contain Darwin’s “entire argument.”<br /><br />Pamela Bjorkman says this:<br /><br /><i>So a successful virus would be something like influenza virus, that changes every year. So what it does is it mutates. It makes a lot of different forms of itself. Most of these are completely useless—that is they are defective viruses. But out of the millions and millions of viruses that it makes, one or a few of those will be better, and those will go on and multiply and infect other people. <br /><br />That is evolution at work.<br /><br />So basically, the viruses make millions of copies of themselves, most of them are worse. They’re making random mutations, random changes. They don’t know beforehand what’s good or what’s bad. The best ones will win out, and those will go on and infect.<br /><br />In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale. So that they made some changes in their immune system, to keep up with particular viruses and other changes that were actually worse. And the changes that were beneficial gradually win out.<br /><br />So in a nutshell, that’s an example of evolution, at play, in your body, that goes on all the time.<br /><br />And so I think we need to understand this, because bacteria in particular are able to mutate to get around antibiotics. It’s another example of evolution. We need to understand this, so that we can develop drugs that will actually get around bacteria’s incredible ability to evolve quickly, to get around the drugs we use today. Thank you.</i><br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/11/pop-quiz-who-believes-and-promotes.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33175317104043613702012-07-12T15:26:22.225-07:002012-07-12T15:26:22.225-07:00EL:
One must wonder what? sheesh.
Just add water...EL:<br /><br /><i>One must wonder what? sheesh.</i><br /><br />Just add water right? For evolutionists it all just happens, somehow.<br /><br /><i>For instance, consider the HGT process of transformation in which DNA from the extracellular environment is imported into the cell via what one paper describes as “a complex process” involving a small army of protein machines.<br /><br />Then there is the HGT process of conjugation in which the DNA is transferred via cell-to-cell contact. A bridge-like connection is constructed between the two cells through which helpful DNA is transferred. And the donor cell has the molecular machinery to verify that the receiving cell does not already possess the donated DNA. And the DNA includes genes critical in the conjugation process. The DNA to be sent over is nicked and unwound so a single strand can be threaded through the bridge connection.</i><br /><br />The evolutionary pattern failed and so evolutionists must turn to some complicated set of known and unknown mechanisms. HGT has been a popular go-to explanation. But of course HGT itself must have somehow been created by evolution. So evolution created those incredible mechanisms when then produced evolution. With evolution the absurdity continues.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16723867219070103212012-07-12T15:22:39.372-07:002012-07-12T15:22:39.372-07:00Cornelius Hunter
Dr. Liddle: "I'd like t...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />Dr. Liddle: "I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.<br /><br />Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making."<br /><br />CH: "On page 2 of *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science,* Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner write:</i><br /><br />Cornelius, those passages don't mention universal common descent <b>at all</b>.<br /><br />Looks like you've got quite a bit of egg on your face.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5379195139303158082012-07-12T15:11:32.916-07:002012-07-12T15:11:32.916-07:00EL:
I see you equivocating, by citing different w...EL:<br /><br /><i>I see you equivocating, by citing different writers out of context, using the word "evolution" in different senses.</i><br /><br />So when you point out the equivocation, then the evolutionist blames you of equivocating!<br /><br /><br /><i>I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.</i><br /><br />Next the evolutionist changes to subject with a strawman. It illustrates how evolutionists argue. They lower the bar for themselves and raise the bar for you.<br /><br /><br /><i>Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.</i><br /><br />On page 2 of *Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science,* Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner write:<br /><br /><i>These theories, in the words of the late Stephen Jay Gould, have been “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Evolution is one such theory. <br /><br />Definition of Evolution<br /><br />Most simply, evolution is any change in a population’s genetic composition over time. There are several key features of this definition:<br /><br />1. Evolution is a population-level phenomenon, rather than something that can be measured in individuals. Populations evolve; individuals do not.<br /><br />2. Evolution has occurred when *any* genetic change—even something that seems insignificant—happens to any number of individuals in a population.<br /><br />3. Evolution can be measured in generational time.<br /><br />To appreciate this, consider a population of rock pocket mice living on the lava outcrop in the southwestern United States. At an initial observation, 40% of the mice possessed an allele (or genetic variant) that produces lightly colored fur when inherited from each parent. A few generations later, only 34% of the mice possessed this allele. This change in the genetic composition of the population means that evolution has occurred. For evolutionary biologists, the fact that evolution has occurred is often not as exciting as the questions that arise as the result of this observation. For example, *why* did evolution occur?</i>Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8718035500992968312012-07-12T09:18:52.528-07:002012-07-12T09:18:52.528-07:00CH, from your link:
So HGT is now a key mechanism...CH, from your link:<br /><br /><i>So HGT is now a key mechanism of the evolutionary process. It can do what the old mechanisms could not. In fact, one must wonder how this powerful mechanism knows when to send which genes where. For the various versions of HGT are incredibly intelligent.</i><br /><br />One must wonder <i>what</i>?<br /><br />sheesh.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57422943214205157982012-07-12T07:24:23.216-07:002012-07-12T07:24:23.216-07:00Oh, Hunter is aware of HGT. He does not dispute it...Oh, Hunter is <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall.html" rel="nofollow">aware of HGT</a>. He does not dispute its existence. He falls back on the usual creationist approach: but where did HGT come from? (And, needless to say, it's incredibly complicated.) <br /><br />Here is a key graph from that link:<br /><br /><i>But epicycles are not free. In this case, the marshalling of HGTs as the explanation for biology’s patterns and success raises the question of where these complex mechanisms came from in the first place. According to evolutionary theory, evolution created the incredibly complex HGTs which then facilitated, yes, evolution.</i>oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30921882507382220872012-07-12T07:17:50.924-07:002012-07-12T07:17:50.924-07:00Cornelius, you do understand, presumably, that gen...Cornelius, you do understand, presumably, that genetic material can be transferred not only longitudinally, via reproduction, but horizontally, e.g. via viruses?<br /><br />And that therefore, in addition to the tree pattern of gene-sequence distribution you'd expect from longitudinal (hereditary) transfer, we would now expect an additional between-branch pattern representing HGT?<br /><br />And that as we do not regard the viruses that contribute to our genome as our "ancestors", reserving that word for our lineage by birth rather than our lineage by infection, that the evidence of inter-branch transfer does not falsify the hypothesis of common ancestry?<br /><br />And that once a horizontally transferred genetic sequence has been thus transferred, it will then descend by reproductive means down the lineage, providing us with excellent markers of descent?<br /><br />And that HGT sequences are unlikely to represent transfer of phenotypic features?<br /><br />If not, you need to do some homework.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85557251567302868112012-07-12T05:53:08.949-07:002012-07-12T05:53:08.949-07:00CH: The question here is not what “we allow” but w...CH: The question here is not what “we allow” but what evolution must be capable of--what it must have done. Your focusing on speciation illustrates this shell game.<br /><br />The underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that evolutionary processes are capable of creating the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations via a form of conjecture and refutation. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. <br /><br />This would have testable consequences for the present state of the biosphere, which we could deduce based on our best, current explanations. From there, we can make mutually exclusive predictions based on these consequences and devise experiments designed to falsify at least one prediction using empirical observations. <br /><br />So, what's key here creatively conjecturing mutually exclusive predictions that can be falsified by observations. In doing so, we are guaranteed to make progress by at least falsifying one prediction. <br /><br />In other words, evolutionary theory is well within Popper's demarcation of science as defined in <i>The logic of Scientific Discovery</i> <br /><br />As for what evolution must be capable of, why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60901359678585758292012-07-12T05:06:26.737-07:002012-07-12T05:06:26.737-07:00Hunter: Evolutionists typically view this as evide...Hunter: <i>Evolutionists typically view this as evidence that there must be some complex combination of known and unknown evolutionary mechanisms at work. Some have been hypothesized (such as Woese's communities of lateral evolution) which are motivated not by any evidence (nothing like it has been observed) but by the mandate for evolution. Obviously that does not change the fact that the data do not fit the tree model.</i> <br /><br />That's the same process that happens in other areas of science. At the end of the nineteenth century Newtonian mechanics was shown to be wrong at relativistic speeds and physicists were looking for an alternative theory. They did not discard Newtonian mechanics, however, because it still worked at low speeds. <br /><br />The same happened in the early twentieth century when Classical physics was not up to task of explaining the structure of the atom. Planck had to conjecture quantization of energy that no one has seen before. Bohr came up with a ridiculous idea of quantized orbits. Wave-particle dualism, all that. It took a while to develop quantum physics, but in the end it happened. Note that we did not discard classical physics even after that! Why? Because it works away from the quantum and relativistic realms, that's why! <br /><br />So it is in biology. Biologists have discovered that the tree of life does not have a tree structure at the root. Great. There were different biological mechanisms at work back then. There is never a guarantee that our theories, tested in one realm, can be extended without limit (see the two previous paragraphs). <br /><br />So the tree model is not applicable to early life. That does not mean it is inapplicable to life's later stages. We are still cousins of apes, second cousins of monkeys, more distant relatives of mice, and so on.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65003821654768847312012-07-12T02:14:54.273-07:002012-07-12T02:14:54.273-07:00As it happens, the first chapter, containing expla...As it happens, the first chapter, containing explanations of the term "evolution" is visible on the Amazon preview page.<br /><br />I see admirable clarity, and no equivocation whatsover.<br /><br />What is it, specifically, that is bothering you, Cornelius?Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4158844330449489482012-07-12T02:08:58.631-07:002012-07-12T02:08:58.631-07:00It's not a reference because you give neither ...It's not a reference because you give neither quotation nor page number.<br /><br />Look Cornelius, you are a trained academic. You know how this works.<br /><br />Do it right, please. Otherwise we will be tempted to think (indeed I am already tempted to think) you are bluffing.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89161376574829324462012-07-12T02:05:43.670-07:002012-07-12T02:05:43.670-07:00CH: Of course that is precisely what evolutions cl...CH: Of course that is precisely what evolutions claim.<br /><br /><i>Which</i> evolutionist <i>where</i>?<br /><br />I'd like to see a single instance of an "evolutionist" claiming that the fact of allele frequency over time is evidence for universal common descent, or that universal common descent is evidence for changes in allele frequency over time.<br /><br />Full reference please.<br /><br />Ch: I explained it in the cited OP.<br /><br />No, you did not. You just played your usual "shell game" - referencing only your own blogs. And when we click on the link - pick up the shell - all we find is more shells.<br /><br />Please quote verbatim, with full reference to the primary source, the claim that you say those authors are making.<br /><br />Because right now, I see <i>you</i> equivocating, by citing <i>different writers</i> out of context, using the word "evolution" in different senses.<br /><br />I do not see any of <i>those writers</i> equivocating.<br /><br />Pony up Cornelius. Primary sources please. You know it's the Right Thing To Do.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2933049286053236232012-07-11T23:01:08.279-07:002012-07-11T23:01:08.279-07:00oleg:
What exactly do you mean by walking back? S...oleg:<br /><br /><i>What exactly do you mean by walking back? Shall I quote again from Doolittle and Bapteste or do you still remember that conversation?</i><br /><br />By walking back I mean that even evolutionists are, occasionally, acknowledging the limitations of the evolutionary tree model. From a scientific perspective the data (eg, genetic and cellular designs to development pathways to morphological features) do not fit the evolutionary tree model.<br /><br />Evolutionists typically view this as evidence that there must be some complex combination of known and unknown evolutionary mechanisms at work. Some have been hypothesized (such as Woese's communities of lateral evolution) which are motivated not by any evidence (nothing like it has been observed) but by the mandate for evolution. Obviously that does not change the fact that the data do not fit the tree model.<br /><br />Evolutionists think evolution is a fact and impose that on the data. It is, however, the data which are the facts, not evolution. And the "facts" do not agree with the evolutionary tree model and prediction.<br /><br />Evolutionists, however, typically deny this and continue to preach the evolutionary dogma that the data obey their theory. To reject this is not to be in "complete denial" as you contend.<br /><br />Discussions with evolutionists about the science don't get very far though because, ultimately, we lack a common basis. Science, and the scientific data do not drive evolution. Evolution is driven by metaphysics which are imposed on the science.<br /><br />It is what it is. Evolution has repeatedly failed on the science. You can acknowledge the science, or go in a different direction. But don't fool yourself.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com