My comments were intended for
@YoursTrue , because I knew she’d understand it.
Likely because she has shown herself to be extremely stubborn when it comes to this particular subject.
I can't count the amount of times I had to inform her that her argument of "...
but they remain lions!!!" or similar is based in ignorance of how the process actually works.
You said, I’m “ignoring all evidence”.
I said that you are ignoring all evidence
that the lines you draw are abritrary.
Not all evidence, full stop. Seems like you ironically ignored the italic part.
That’s rich, because you only have one line of evidence: some living creatures have the same genes.
That isn't true at all.
First, ALL species share genes in a nested hierarchy. Every lineage thus makes up for its OWN line of evidence. That's
millions of lines of evidence right there.
And that's
just comparative genomics.
That's not even considering comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc.
So really, there are, quite literally,
billions of independnt lines of evidence that ALL converge on the same answer.
Most scientists who see these same genes in other organisms automatically jump to the conclusion, “Oh, because these organisms ‘share’ the same genes, it must mean they are related!”
No. Once again, you are ignoring the PATTERN of genetic matches.
It's the PATTERN of genetic matches here that is important.
If humans would have genes for feathers as we find in birds for example, then that would not be evidence for evolution.
It would in fact be evidence AGAINST evolution. Because it wouldn't fit the PATTERN that evolution requires (nested hierarchies).
So once again: it's not just the sharing of DNA. It's the PATTERN of how they are shared.
It eludes them, that a Designer could simply have duplicated them in the origination of such unrelated species. And they then stay within their “kinds.”
If that were the case, then we wouldn't expect them to fall in a nested hierarchy.
Only evolutionary processes explain nested hierarchies.
Human engineers for example will use the same components in different product lines. So there will be matches in design between say an opel astra and an opel corsa. But these matches will NOT fit a nested hierarchy.
NO engineer or product designer would design product lines with nested hierarchies because it is inefficient and a waste of resources.
Evolution though, has no other option. It can only go forward with modified versions of what exists in the present. That is what creates the nested hierarchy.
This is why even though we are "naked" apes, we still have goosebumps.
This is why even though we are bipedal, our spine isn't really fit for bipedalism since it's a modified version of a spine meant for walking on all 4s. This is why 70% of people deal with lower backpains at some point in their lives.
This is why we have nerves that really only need to travel an inch or two, but instead take incredibly long detours because they happen to be wrapped around our aorta due to how they initially evolved 300 million years ago.
This is why our eyes have a blind spot.
etc etc etc
If your god designed everything in this way, then your god went OUT OF HIS WAY to make it look as if it was the result of a natural process.
Honestly, sharing the same genetic structure, could just as well be evidence that all Families(?) / Orders(?) of creatures were designed by one Creator, using the same genetic DNA blueprint! And they diversified from there.
Only if you assume that creator to be deceptive and went out of his way to make it look as if that is not at all what happened and that instead everything evolved from a common ancestor.
The Cambrian Explosion and the Fossil record both tend to support this conclusion, whether you deny it or not.
wtf????
There were no mammals during the cambrian explosion, so you just contradicted your own nonsense.
But I know that you have a lot of faith in the creative power of ToE.
No faith needed when you have evidence.
