edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
It has nothing to do with semantics, although that is all you are doing by equating similarity of genes to similarity of elements on the periodic table, it has to do with mapping the genome which you well know is more revealing than fossil evidence. And that is because genes are not just made of similar elements of the periodic table, they are in a certain specific arrangement that links the platypus' connections to other classes of animals.The article said the GENE MAP "proves" the platypus was part mammal, bird and reptile, which it does.
No, it does not "prove" anything. Because it has similarities with other things doesn't prove there is a connection.
You then took out of context the words "could" and "believe" when the article went on to relate this info to the theory of evolution, that as you well know was your Straw Man.
I took nothing out of context. I simply highlighted words which define the statements as speculations and not proven facts.
I was of course attacking your lie that there was no evidence that a platypus was ever a reptile, when there is obviously the undeniable evidence contained in the platypus genome that you deny exists.
It wasn't a lie. The similarity of genes is not evidence of anything other than similar genetics. I suspect the platypus also is comprised of similar material elements found in the periodic table as other forms of matter, that doesn't prove a relationship.
Now we can certainly get into a semantics argument about what is or isn't "evidence" ...there is no evidence we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials but SOME people certainly believe there IS evidence. So what is the "correct" answer... is there evidence because some people THINK there is evidence?
Again you are simply showing your religious doctrinal belief that no matter what the evidence there can be no transition species therefore all evidence must be dismissed.