Bradcap1 writes:
Controversial claim #1:
There could have been any number of lines previous to the one that exists now.
See the scientific method in my previous post and the problems associated with this claim.
You yourself have agreed that there could have been more, but there is no evidence to support this view. So, you agree with RAZD - how then is it controversial? Would you say that it's
impossible? In that case, the burden of proof would fall upon you.
Bradcap1 writes:
Controversial Claim #2:
Homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent.
See assays based on complimentary base pairing and the discipline of bioinformatics (comparative genomics), as well as any of the thousands of published research papers reporting on homologous genes.
Please show where RAZD made the claim that homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent. It is customary in requests like this to both quote and link to the message you're quoting (or at least tell us the message number).
The only related point I can find of RAZD's is where he said (with respect to
chirality as evidence of common descent in
Message 34):
RAZD writes:
I concur, common descent does\is not need to be a necessary result -- it can be a matter of common resources.
That's a far cry from the claim you're crediting to him.
Edited by Belfry, : typo