Robert,
Perhaps it is wrong for us to say there is no evidence for Toe.
There's no perhaps about it. It would be lying, given I have presented evidence.
Toe is a great idea about great matters. And great ideas to take thier place must have the WEIGHT of evidence behind them.
And the odds of 300 cladograms matching stratigraphy as well as they do against the odds of it happening by chance are 5.68*10^323:1. This is a colossal weight of evidence.
Your "test" is a minor examination based on some minor premise as I see it.
You are kidding me, right?
The test is based upon the molecular & morphological data of over 300 cladograms, globally. The correlation is MASSIVE, absolutely massive. There is
nothing minor about it.
And for the record, the "minor" premise is evolution, & that's is being tested, not assumed.
Again however the difference between evidence shorn of assumption is the ruling point.
There is no assumption of evolution, that is what is being tested.
Off thread (i think) but defeating your example doesn't requier chance but reinterpretation of rocks in the field.
Go for it, mate. I'd love to see how you explain the correlation of cladograms with stratigraphy to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1 against such an occurrence by chance.
If there was real evidence then we creationists and the public would be drowning in it.
There is, but when people are intellectually dishonest enough to dismiss odds of 5.68*10^323:1 as being "minor", then you have to wonder at their capacity for logic, don't you?
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't