Posted: Feb 18, 2013 6:37 am
1) The canard you have erected here is the "transitional fossils" of phylogeny. There are bound to be errors within modern taxonomic classifications, and science is always discovering new information to change the tree. Such changes or such errors do not disprove the theory of evolution, nor do they in any way significantly demonstrate evolution as faulty or weak.
2) What parts of the tree remain unsettled? Instead of making blanket statements which have no weight behind them, I ask that you provide scientific reasoning as to why you have deduced such a conclusion. It is obviously not the conclusion the citation you linked came to.
3) What authors in 1999? What study is this? Provide the link so I do not have to dig for it. Also citing a study from 1999 is incredibly fallacious. They are tons of modern papers on ERV's and common descent.
4) Like most people trying to disprove evolution you have taken several facts out of context and used them to create your own opinion on the science. It is duplicitous behavior and unscientific in approach.
I am sure a certain blue butterfly has access to a ton of sources in regards to endogenous retroviruses. But until then, you are just posting the same old canards.
Honestly this argument stinks something rotten as if the Discovery Institute argued this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/fu ... 10451.html
Oh wait Luskin did!!
Edit: Oh I see Cali is up bright and early in his part of the world.
2) What parts of the tree remain unsettled? Instead of making blanket statements which have no weight behind them, I ask that you provide scientific reasoning as to why you have deduced such a conclusion. It is obviously not the conclusion the citation you linked came to.
3) What authors in 1999? What study is this? Provide the link so I do not have to dig for it. Also citing a study from 1999 is incredibly fallacious. They are tons of modern papers on ERV's and common descent.
4) Like most people trying to disprove evolution you have taken several facts out of context and used them to create your own opinion on the science. It is duplicitous behavior and unscientific in approach.
I am sure a certain blue butterfly has access to a ton of sources in regards to endogenous retroviruses. But until then, you are just posting the same old canards.
Honestly this argument stinks something rotten as if the Discovery Institute argued this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/fu ... 10451.html
Oh wait Luskin did!!
Edit: Oh I see Cali is up bright and early in his part of the world.