Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

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?

You can stoop to any level that fits you. We don't care what you care to believe. The science is as it is and your discomfort with it is of no concern to anyone.Still haven't found your god, I see.

Bullshit!You are here for religious reasons. You try to boost your religious zeal by thinking you can fight evolution. This entire site is about religion you retarded backwater inbreed. No self awareness at all.The dumb is strong with this one.And, god damn it, sensei, where is your fuckin god?

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

Troll

There is no "any nested hierarchy". Either it is a nested hierarchy or it isn't.If common ancestry is true AND vertical inheritance is true, then it should produce a nested hierarchy. That's the prediction. The observation is a nested hierarchy. Prediction supported. Theory supported.When observations match the predictions made by the theory then the theory is supported. That's how science works. Exactly. There is no reason why design would produce a nested hierarchy over any other pattern. Only common ancestry with vertical inheritance will necessarily produce a nested hierarchy.When A predicts billions of possible patterns and B predicts one specific pattern, observation of the specific pattern predicted by B makes B the better explanation. Funny how you can't explain why my reasoning is flawed.

Common ancestry predicts a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. The theory matches reality.

It's called the law of parsimony.

quote:

---

For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects—this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

---

Science defines reality. Science is the best way to determine reality.Your science hatred is no surprise. Science destroys your god. Evolution destroys your god.And you are right. When a speculation violates physics, your god loses and disappears in a puff of reality.

Please explain why a designer could not have given bats lighter bones, or birds heavier bones.Please explain why a designer would be forced to fit his designs into a nested hierarchy.

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.

Intellectually incompetent religionist dumbass.... still without evidence of your god.

False. I think that a nested hierarchy evidences common ancestry. Hasn't that sunk in yet?If a species had similarities that were derived features from both mammals and birds this would FALSIFY evolution. This would disprove evolution. Similarities can disprove evolution if certain similarities are seen together in the same species.So NO, I am not saying that similarities in and of themselves evidence common ancestry. I am saying that the PATTERN of similarities evidences common ancestry.

You explain why evolution has not resulted in multiple human species today. And explain why evolution has not resulted 18 legged spiders.What purpose do you see in explaining why something that is not, is not? I already pointed this out, but you keep insisting. Yet another evolutionist who keeps insisting in bad logic and flawed arguments.

Then why are you rejecting the scientific method?In the scientific method, a theory makes a prediction. If that prediction is observed then the theory is supported. You are actively rejecting this logic.