We should remember that the taxonomy classification is quite arbitrary, and not a science in and of itself. As we find out more and more about the building blocks of chromosomes and genes of these various species, we see extremely complex relationships that aren't as simple as claimed. Species within a supposed single genus can have for example huge variations in number of chromosomes, something we would think would have better correlation if in face such species "evolved" over millions of years.

Species within a supposed single genus can have for example huge variations in number of chromosomes, something we would think would have better correlation if in face such species "evolved" over millions of years.


Err any given change in number of chromosomes normally requires just ONE mutation (either chromosomes copied or deletion), NOT many over millions of years. So millions of years are not required for a change in the number of chromosomes event and there wouldn't necessarily be a good correlation between how many chromosomes two species have and how closely they are related. + what is the source of information that the two are generally not at all correlated? Please show a link showing this.

We should remember that creationists are always likely to spout some ignorant and/or dishonest nonsense in response to any article about evolution.

We should remember that creationists are always likely to spout some ignorant and/or dishonest nonsense in response to any article about evolution.

Strangely, it's the very act of saying ANYTHING in favor of a mythical, completely unscientific and irrational "evolution" that is perpetrating the greatest spread of lies the world currently knows. Darwinian evolution is nothing but a pack of lies - as is becoming clearer each day the more we know about the genetic make-up of biological life..

There is just no way that a purely materialistic chemical or physical process can generate the required information to build increasingly complex SYSTEMS from lower order organisms. You cannot get the abstract knowledge from naturalistic causes. Coding and decoding plus reparation requires external intelligence. Nothing else will do.

Strangely, it's the very act of saying ANYTHING in favor of a mythical, completely unscientific and irrational "evolution"

How is it unscientific when you can observe it in the wild, in the fossil record and also in the lab? What more do you want?

It's really hard to call something a lie when the evidence is available for you every time you open your eyes. That pretty much classifies as " spouting some ignorant and/or dishonest nonsense", wouldn't you agree?


There is just no way that a purely materialistic chemical or physical process can generate the required information to build increasingly complex SYSTEMS

And yet something as simple as water and cold can create supremely complex snowflakes.
What was your argument again?

Remember: just because you're too dumb to understand something doesn't mean it ain't so.

Say what you will, but if I read the creation tale in Genesis, then Origin of the Species, I get a different opinion of which I would classify as "mythical, completely unscientific and irrational", Freddo...

It's really hard to call something a lie when the evidence is available
Naw it's the easiest thing in the world. It requires no thought only emotion. Faith allows the world to be what you want it to be without having to understand and accept what it actually is. Or what's worse, having to accept that you don't know what it is.

IOW religionists are lazy, immature, fear mongering bigots. They have to be in order to garner the love and admiration of Father Xmas. It says so in the books dontcha know.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Dawkins

There is just no way that a purely materialistic chemical or physical process can generate the required information to build increasingly complex SYSTEMS from lower order organisms. You cannot get the abstract knowledge from naturalistic causes
-And it always AMAZES me how they think they can just declare something and expect that it be true. God did this of course when he just declared that the universe exist, and poof! there it was.

But that want-have compulsion of the infant crying for its mama to deliver is what generated the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god who delivers on command in the first place.

Any faithers present at creation though would have been impatient that it took 6_whole_days.

Darwinian evolution is nothing but a pack of lies etc


So you're saying that a being that is capable of engineering millions of species is not capable of creating a self perpetuating process that delivers these millions of species by the simple expedient of starting with a few naturally occurring chemicals and a lot of time. No, this designer is impatient, he - it's always a he isn't it - needs it all to happen in one day...because he's got better things to be doing than waiting around. Of course once he's created the millions of species that's it, no more new ones. After all, there is no mechanism for new ones to...evolve...because he couldn't work out how to make that happen. No! Straight in there with the eyeballs and the gametes, sod this waiting around malarkey. I mean, everyone's looking forward to armageddon and the rapture, wouldn't have wanted to wait billions of years for all this to turn up, complete waste of effort...no live fast die young that's the motto..