Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.
I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.
My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.
Sure, Darwin got some things wrong. There were a lot of things he had no knowledge of. Like DNA and the Burgess Shales and Chengjiang.
But the general concept of evolution by the means of natural selection is every bit as valid today as it was when Darwin wrote
Origin.
And you cannot prove otherwise nor offer a better theory.
1. I can prove otherwise
2. Providing a 'better' theory is not my obligation.
3. Are you ready to admit that Darwin freely stated that
fossil proof was necessary to prove his theory?
And that for his theory to be true,
the record must show increasing complexity...
It seems you are clueless as to the significance of the Burgess deposits, of Chengjiang, etc.
4. And, in order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be
quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would
only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.?
Here....let's bury you in education: :
'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.
a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.
The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that
the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils
did not reveal any evolutionary trail!
Poor you, huh?
Bought the scam like it was on sale.
5. BTW....the Discovery article was way over the top.
In other threads I have shown the mathematical improbability of the 'molecular evidence.'
