front loading: did evos get it backwards

Is it your understanding that "molecular studies" refers to the fossil record?hmmm...

randman, were you claiming that evolutionists find studies on living animals as evidence to support descent from a common ancestor?Edited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : add quote other edits were grammar

---

Thanks

Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.But as far as this thread, I am not sure how you could misread my discussion of molecular studies from an evo assumption perspective, meaning assuming common descent, as studies on the fossil record. Perhaps you should reread my comments and this thread....or perhaps you think you are on a different thread....it happens.Evos do consider current molecular studies in light of various assumptions to have specific indications of the genome of the last common ancestor of all plants and animals. If you want to argue it's bogus and unfalsfiable science, be my guest. You may well be right.But that's not the point of this thread. What I am talking about is viewing the evidence from these studies, assuming for sake of argument for a minute they were accurate (big assumption since they are based on common descent), and what their conclusions suggest since they were predicted by front loaders and contradict the expectations of evos.

randman,no wonder you have trouble believing in the theory of evolution. prove it.Edited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : edit... quote error-fixed

---

Thanks

quote:

---

Evos do indeed find studies on living animals as evidence for common ancestry. The fossil record contradicts evo models in reality which is one reason they have started harping on the claim the fossil record isn't the primary evidence for evo theory, though they would claim it isn't that the fossil record contradicts evo theory (though it does) but that it is too incomplete or some fossil rarity claim.

---

Please show how the fossil record contradicts the TOE. Please show where
the biologists say it isn't the 'primary' evidence. (I am objecting to the word primary). It might not be the sole evidence of evolution, and it is not evidence for the degree of common decent among ALL living creatures (although it is among vertebrates at least). I would like for you to provide evidence for your assertion. It looks totally unsupported to me, and contradictory to what I know about the claims of evolution.

Keep trying. One day, just by chance alone, you may manage to use all the right words in the right order.Unless you always screw it up by design. Do any of them have intact genes with potential biological function lying in unused storage for future use, as in front-loaded evolution?Would you care to give us an example of one of these organisms, so's we can see what it's doing with its genes? The article you cited does not in fact say that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Huh?Scientist Makes New Observation, Revises Old Opinion Shock!This ... is ... how ... it's ... meant ... to ... work.

Pretty simple question....what does NeoDarwinism predict? So far, no evo dares answer.

Interesting that you cannot produce the common ancestor for nearly anything of substance, and yet you make this statement.Is it fair to say evos are deluded then because they have no common ancestor alive for all animals, plants, or heck, any common ancestor living for any grouping of animals above the species level?

Why don't you check into some of the fossil threads. You might be surprised what you find and what your fellow evos claim.

Here is your proof from the OP and evidence you should probably just read this thread and learn something rather than try to engage in debate. You apparently have no clue as to how evos do indeed do molecular studies on current species to infer conclusions on the theoritical last common ancestor. Sad you are participating without bothering to read the OP.Page Not Found | University of California

That isn't so much simple as vague. Could you maybe narrow it down a bit? Do you mean 'What does NeoDarwinism predict the latest common ancestor of the metazoa should be like genetically?'?TTFN,WK

randman,You claimed the fossil record contradicts the ToE. Ramoss asked you to support that claim. Please do so. Failure puts you in contravention of Forum Guideline #4.What is it this time, permanent suspension?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

That seems to be an avoidance of the issue. I asked you to provide evidence of your claim. Show me the evidence for the claim , not a random 'Oh, see what someone else says' (pretty vague if you ask me).Can you point to evidence? Or, perhaps, it is just misinterpretation on your part?Can you show evidence, or will you continue to make unsupported claims, and then say 'Look it up yourself' when asked to provide evidence for those claims?

Two things:

• Please leave moderation issues to the moderators. Possibility of suspension is a moderation issue. Discussion problems should be reported to the Windsor castle thread.
  ​
• Please follow rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
  ​
  4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director