Re: Ordinary selection of built in variation is not species to species evolution
If common ancestry is the reality, such contradictions should not exist and different forms of evidence should all point to one, unambiguous phylogenetic tree.
You did some reading. I'm impressed.
Did you manage to see any of these contradictions and where they violate the phylogenetic tree systematic? Did you see where these disagreements deal with placement of critters ON THE SAME twig but whether critter A evolved from the founder population before or after critter B?
Did you bother to read WHAT these disagreements entail?
There is no disagreement on the phylogenetic tree paradigm. There are minor disagreements on exact placement of some critters WITHIN that critters naturally evolving clade.
Can you find us a controversy where the nested hierarchy concept would be violated?
No, you can't.
You take some minor disagreements and use them to lie about their effect on the whole edifice.
You can show NO tree controversy in the major discipline that contradicts ANY of the nested hierarchy reality.
Thank you for this little piece of Darwinist folkllore. What a pity there is next to nothing in the fossil record to support it.
Obviously, from your other fantasy submissions, your research scholarship is lacking and this sloppy observation is dismissed as the ravings of an ignorant religious rube.
Just curious ... how would you describe my "god creation fantasy", exactly?