These “implications” would appear to have no existence outside your fevered imagination.
Signing aSDfD does not imply rejection of universal common descent.
-
aSDfD does not even contain an explicit rejection of “Darwinism”.
-
Even rejection of Darwinism does not imply rejection of universal common descent.
Yes, but I meant Behe accepts it as the scientific community understands it, not as some clueless and scientifically-illiterate YEC misunderstands it. For the avoidance of doubt, let me clarify:
- Michael Behe explicitly accepts universal Common Descent. Michael Behe would accept, for example, common descent between cats and dogs, and in fact between all mammals.
Given your complete failure to provide anything within a million miles of a rigorous definition of “kinds”, let me cut you off there.
Your blather is not evidence, but simply your naive and scientifically-illiterate interpretation of the evidence.
The observable evidence is as follows:
-
Offspring are similar to the parents.
-
Offspring are, on average, less similar to their grandparents.
-
With each generation, the offspring are, on average, more dissimilar to their ultimate progenitors.
As the is no observable limit to this increase in dissimilarity, there is no evidence that this dissimilarity cannot grow without limit.
I made no such claim!
Please stop putting words in my mouth – it is extremely dishonest.
I would suggest however if your only understanding of evolution is from creationist propaganda and creationist quote-mines of evolutionary biologists (as seems to be the case), then you have no understanding of evolution.
What books by Darwin, Mayr, Gould, Peterson, etc have you actually read (rather than simply copy-and-pasting quote-mines of them from some creationist website)?
You have not provided one digit, not one binary bit of hard data.
All that you have done is provided the opinions of inexpert creationists, and the misrepresented opinions of scientists.