ericmurphy
Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Dave, as Jeannot pointed out, "common descent" is a fact. If you'd ever actually read this thing as you've been asked countless times, you'd realize that there is simply no debating common descent. It's not a hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's a fact.
So your problem is to account for common descent through your "hypothesis" of massive, unprecedented evolution from created "kinds" (which you cannot define, cannot identify, and cannot even tell which modern organisms are descended from the same "kind").
Modern evolutionary theory (not "Darwin's General theory"; Darwin wasn't even aware of the existence of genes, for crying out loud) provides a comprehensive explanation for nested hierarchies and the common descent that is the only conceivable accounting for nested hierarchies.
By way of contrast, what does your "hypothesis" explain, Dave? You cannot even segregate organisms out into descendants of "created kinds"! Are dogs and cats from the same "kinds"? What about mussels and brachiopods? What about crabs and horseshoe crabs? What about jellyfish and squid? What about otters and weasels? What about humans and chimps? And if you say species "A" and species "B" are descended from the same "kind," what can you tell us about when in time those two species diverged from their common ancestral "kind"? It has to be less than 4,500 years ago; was it 3,000 years ago? 500 years ago? Six weeks ago? How long ago did seals and sea-lions diverge into separate species of pinnipeds? During the Middle Ages?
And if your theory is better than mine, Dave, then why does it take me less than two minutes to find seals and sea lions on the Tree of Life webpage? If you think the tree of life is bogus, then why does it work so well? How long would it take you to find them on your little "ladder of life" that you think is a more "accurate" reflection of my beliefs?
It still beggars belief that you think your "hypothesis" is somehow a better explanation for the world around us than the standard theories, when as far as I can tell your "hypothesis" can't explain anything. Organisms "spoken into existence"? That's supposed to "explain" something?
God, what millennium are you from, Dave?
--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams
|
