Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

I haven't made any claims. You have.You deny common descent and evolution. I don't. I accept the scientific consensus. You don't.You are the outlier here, sensei. The science case has already been made decades ago. You claim it is wrong. It is incumbent on you to present your evidence, not just your tirades, to show your case.Answer the questions or tuck your tail and leave the field.

Your evidence? Any?

Yes, you did.You claimed that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not be a result of evolution. Now back up your claim or zip it!

All of lifes complexity, which you evolutionists so poorly understand, it's just pathetic!

All the complexity of life, which we understand quite well, is actually quite beautiful.Disturbing that you think life is pathetic.

I explained my perception and that it may be lacking and asked for clarification.Are you going to clarify or just bitch. Answer the questions in Message 487.

If you cannot point out where you got your false perception from and fix it yourself, you may never learn.

I learned science. You didn't. I know reality. You don't.You see life as pathetic. I don't.You have learned nothing.

Frankly, you won't say what assumptions you are talking about. You just say that we are making assumptions. It makes us think that you are just trying to invent a reason to ignore the evidence.So do we observe a nested hierarchy or not?

Based on what evidence?

Do you think a scientific theory is falsified by simply pronouncing that it is false?Talk about assumptions . . .

How do you think babies are made? Is each person magically created, or is there a natural process that does exactly what you are describing?I also showed you the evidence that random mutations are responsible for the differences between species:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367Common ancestry is evidence by the nested hierarchy.So that covers both the similarities and differences between genomes.Where is your evidence?

You made false claims about what I said and misreprented my views. And now you pretend that you did none of those.If you describe life as a nested hierarchy and conclude that it is due to evolution from a common ancestry, then that is your conclusion. Not mine!That does not mean that I think evolution could or would not result in some sort of nested tree. That is where your logic goes wrong.If we find a dead body and you assume that it is from murder, I would say that it could also be from an accident, from disease or from old age. Does that mean that I don't think that murder would result in a dead body?So if you want an honest discussion, I suggest you take back your words. And also, most of your questions seem to be based on this misunderstanding on your part.I don't deny at all, that some sort of nested pattern could arise if life had evolved. Do you understand this?

Who says my pronouncing was for the purpose of falsifying anything?

Babies grow starting with all necessary DNA alreasdy present. Not from nothing.