• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ernst Haeckel's embryological diagrams and biology textbooks

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scientist-not-so-simplebugs-that.html

It amazes me how Darwinist predictions could be so wrong again and again and yet it's proponents are steadfast in their faith.

I'm equally amazed at your continued attempts to rebut science. Darwins so called failed predictions don't fail nearly as bad or as often as ID predictions. Someone explains something to you and then you say the same thing over and over again. This is a typical creationist tactic.

Doesn't it bother you that you that are your academic credentials that allow you to argue with thee people?
 
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-scientist-not-so-simplebugs-that.html

It amazes me how Darwinist predictions could be so wrong again and again and yet it's proponents are steadfast in their faith.
It amazes me how idiotic it is to link to a blog where the author is arguing from incredibility.

The New Scientist issue is interesting. It starts by pointing out the popular misconceptuion that bacteria are simple. Then there are various articles that illustrate that bacteria have interesting features.

This is a typical strawman argument that we see from ignorant creationists/IDiots all of the time.
Evolution does not predict that all bacteria will be 'simple'. It predicts that bacteria will have different features (some of which can be considered complex) due to mutations and natural selection. Guess what - that is exactly what the issue is about :jaw-dropp!

P.S. randman
Citations for all the genes for later life forms were present in the earliest common ancestor to plants and animals?
 
This is a typical strawman argument that we see from ignorant creationists/IDiots all of the time.
Evolution does not predict that all bacteria will be 'simple'. It predicts that bacteria will have different features (some of which can be considered complex) due to mutations and natural selection.
This has always confused me. I mean, bacteria have been evolving for 3.9 billion years, the same amount of time we've been evolving. Some will be simple, some complex, just as animals range in complexity from sponges to whales. It's really only those ignorant of what evolution actually predicts that think that scientists think that bacteria should be simple.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom