Darwin, Another flatulent atheist god bites the dust!

Still cant make a case huh LOL
A good place to start is articulate what/why you think there is a problem with the evidence provided

 

You didn't provide any evidence. You just made a couple claims.

 

Sorry, Im satisfied with the evidence provided, and since you cant give me a reason to provide more you obviously do not know the subject matter and its a waste of my time. Make a case and I will consider it, until then your demands are whimsical, PLONK.

 

Projection

 

You didn't provide any evidence. You just claimed that embryos and non-coding DNA were a problem for evolution. But you didn't provide any evidence. I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion when you just want to make claims and refuse to show that they are valid. Below is my response. It has just as much evidence as you do:
Early development in vertebrate embryos isn't more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, not contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions.

 

make a case and find out.

repeating **** 20,000 times does not change the issue, you tried that before and failed, you have no case, I have no need, I can repeat forever too.

 

Below is my case. It has as much evidence as you do.
Early development in vertebrate embryos isn't more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, not contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions.

 

Since we have already established you are not qualified to speak to the matter, citation please.

 

You have no clue.

 

Oh dear millions and millions of theists and a few hundred thousand agnostics are going to be very upset Darwin has been proved wrong!

 

not so sure laughing themselves to tears is considered 'very upset'

nice projection! Not taking the bait. Got a case yet?

 

Will the real God please stand up..

 

Deflection

 

Why do you believe functional non-coding DNA is a problem for evolution?

 

Just click on the highlighted title of the article.

 

Deflection is a hallmark of creationists.

 

I think you are confused the majority of people who think evolution best explains the diversity of are theists, but a position on god tells you nothing about whether someone agrees with evolution. Obviously you cannot agree with creationism since you are agnostic!

 

You have to understand, you are dealing with someone who has claimed on more than 1 occasion to have disproven Einstein and all of modern physics.

 

He cant agree with creationism and claim to be agnostic, maybe he believes aliens seeded the universe, that is very popular with Holocaust denier types!

 

Seriously? Does he believe in the theory of gravity?

 

I'm dead serious. He thinks he's disproven relativity.

 

Think I get your point. The scripture says "without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God." There is evidence of God all around us, but to "acknowledge Him" it takes an action of the heart. That translates into "relation". That is what God wants. It is a matter of choice. So the question I pose to myself...."why should I ever be upset with the "mockers"? They choose just like I have.

 

lol

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.2

Of course, these scientists are all committed evolutionists, which makes their admissions all the more weighty. To reiterate, the basic problem is that one gene or protein yields one version of the “tree of life,” while another gene or protein yields an entirely different tree. As the New Scientist article stated:

The problems began in the early 1990s when it became possible to sequence actual bacterial and archaeal genes rather than just RNA. Everybody expected these DNA sequences to confirm the RNA tree, and sometimes they did but, crucially, sometimes they did not. RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse.3

Likewise, leading evolutionary bioinformatics specialist W. Ford Doolittle explains, “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.”4 Hillis (and others) may claim that this problem is only encountered when one tries to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships of microorganisms, such as bacteria, which can swap genes through a process called “horizontal gene transfer,” thereby muddying any phylogenetic signal. But this objection doesn’t hold water because the tree of life is challenged even among higher organisms where such gene-swapping does not take place. As the article explains:

Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts—also known as tunicates—are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren’t chordates. “Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another,” Syvanen says.5

Even among higher organisms, “[t]he problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” leading Syvanen to say, regarding the relationships of these higher groups, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.” This directly contradicts Hillis’ claim that there is “overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence.”
https://www.discovery.org/a/10651/

 

Discovery Institute propaganda; plus it's old news.

 

Yeh I have known for a long time darwins theory was dead RIH

Who are the atheists going to worship now? They lost dickie dawkins, and now the darwin god is also debunked and proven false.