Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Could you elaborate? How does evolution explain all this exquisitely? And how do we verify the validity of these explanations?

In a way, we see many cross overs of systems. But calling it cross overs, would imply a process of evolution had taken place.Example of "cross over" is flight. Many different groups within totally different locations in the hierarchy have a flight system. And of course the system is adapted to fit the physique of the specific organisms.But the bigger question I was asking about was the explanation for the supposed sub-optimality by evolution. How exactly does evolution explain this so exquisitely?

The part I quoted was about two things: systems being stuck and not crossing over and elements being good enough instead of optimal.My question was about these two things.

Of course we don't see bats with bird-like wings. Bats have denser mammal bones. They have wings well suited and adapted to their physique. If you expected anything else from design, you have some serious misunderstandings about biology and physics.

Yes, better than competitors is sufficient. But at what level of optimality would that be? Any level that we observe, you could say that is better than enough of the competitors. This does not really add anything of significance to test common ancestry of all life.

Replacing genes is not designing organisms at all. That is making alterations to existing organisms at most.You do understand that hollow bones are easier to lift than denser bones, do you?Of course bats could have feathers and lay eggs. But then we would call them birds, not bats. You are making up hypothetical situations that are not there, and therefor totally irrelevant.

Similarities and differences are a given, in the genotype as well as in the phenotype. You seem to think that close similarity can only mean common ancestry. This is false for sure. Many things can look very similar without having any common origin. But you deny such basic facts and reality, rather sticking to your flawed logic.

Bats can fly perfectly fine. So what is your problem? Ligher bones solves a problem that does not exist. Good luck with your flawed backwards logic.

Hahaha, you must think you are so smart.

Arguing that a god could have done something differently is in no way evidence that a god could not have done it the way it is.

So this seems to be your line of reasoning:If universal common ancestry were true, then it would have produced some nested hierarchy. So any nested hierarchy that we find, must be a result of common ancestry. Because if it came from design, it could have been designed in different ways.No wonder you think the nested hierarchy is so great, while it really isn't. Your reasoning is totally flawed. Don't expect me to stoop down to your level of "brilliance" and accept your false theories.

Religion is not the topic here. You still fail to grasp that? Keep insisting on changing the topic? If we start doing that, why won't you start proving abiogenisis and Big Bang?

When science has a theory that contradicts reality, then the theory is false. Simple as that!

Troll

I don't hate science. If anybody hates science, it's you, as you kee abusing it with flawed logic, false theories and wrong assumpsions.