Posted: Feb 25, 2014 10:45 pm
by Rumraket
questioner121 wrote:
bert wrote:Cali spent a while on it and created a picture for you, questioner121.

bert wrote:
questioner121 wrote:An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.

No, it doesn't.
Remember vitamin C ( ... re=related)? The designer would have put the faulty gene (with the chunk missing) in gorilla's, chimps and humans. Doesn't demonstrate much intelligence.

The ERVs ( are the clincher. (Make sure you understand that video).

Did you understand the video? Any comments?


It's evidence of common design.

Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?

Allow me to sum up your position:


guidedmutations.gif (43.99 KiB) Viewed 988 times