Contratrombone64
Admiral of Fugues
Funny, the current issue of National Geographic has a large chapter devoted to The Origin of Species ... a good read.
As I understand you NOW, you are saying that the shared pseudogene is THE evidence of the common ancestry. Ok, but the actual question is -The fact that humans and chimps share the same steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene in the same place in the genome is a smoking gun, forensic evidence of shared ancestry that is nearly impossible to explain in any other context than the evolution of species from common ancestors.
I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion. The Creationist Shell Game is amusing for a while, but soon it gets futile and discouraging.As I understand you NOW, you are saying that the shared pseudogene is THE evidence of the common ancestry. Ok, but the actual question is -
do you see ,in turn, the common ancestry as a proof of evolution?
As you left my question without any answer, I can only state the fact that this discussion did not move an inch forward since Robert had opened it. All claims and all issues of ET are still there. Well, no result is a result as well.
Of course you can. Why would you talk to a real expert, who might disabuse you of the mistaken notions you have about biology? Conspiracy theorists always cherry-pick their "experts," and avoid actual contact with the majority of authorities as they would the Plague itself. It's part and parcel of ignoring context and seeking confirmation for what you've already decided to believe.I can spare me a visit to Uni this time.
I'm through answering your questions. It's pretty obvious you're not interested in real inquiry. You're happy living in your well-reinforced delusion where evolution is a dying paradigm, and the entire subject hinges on whether Andrew affirms it or not. Any question he raises has to be answered in excruciating detail, so that he can play the next round of the shell game and ask more irrelevant questions.
I'm sorry you have no interest in dialogue on this subject.So, in the interests of an upbuilding discourse, what should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Whose expertise should we recognize as valid and why? What is it about Darwin's theory is invalid, and why would so many people (believers and nonbelievers alike) affirm it if it's nothing more than a fairy tale?