Where is your evidence. NOT your denials. Well, unless you have support for them.
Of course there are. Because there are so many holes that have been found in the universal common descent evolution. And still, none of them have been shown to satisfy those errors.
If you want to talk about real world results not being seen, you need to look at universal common descent speculation.
What I have stated, is clearly the real life occurrences. Each of the different kinds reproduce those descendants of their own kind.
This pattern has never been observed to be broken.
Now, do you have empirical evidence other wise?
I don’t understand? I have supplied my empirical evidence. I have supplied what is observed. I’m sure if you go back and ask your mother where human babies come from she will confirm that humans are the only lifeforms known to give birth to humans.
But, for good measure, check with your grandparents. And then you should be able to add up 1+1 and come to the realization that this pattern has been tested and retested time and time again. Not only for humans, but for any and every other kinds of life that have ever lived.
Now, you were saying something about your empirically observed pattern of real life results that have been tested and retested over and over again.
WHERE IS IT?
If you keep refusing to answer questions (which is rude, especially since I answer yours), there’s little i can do. It’s also polite to quote at least a little of what you’re responding to. Makes it easier to know what you’re talking about.
What is your purpose here? What do you hope to achieve?
I carefully wrote out an example for you, and you have thus far ignored it. Find it here:
That is the appearance, yes. Some of the people here are working scientists. Most are well versed in science. You have a lot of complaints about the science of evolution, but you have yet to offer any alternative to the current theory of evolution - a theory that gives us real working results. You keep ignoring me whenever I write this, and I suspect it is because you have no answer. IF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IS SO WRONG, THEN WHY DOES IT WORK SO WELL?
I haven’t talked to them. But then you haven’t talked to the less than one thousand actual scientists who have signed aSDfD either – and a number of them, most notably Michael Behe (whose video you bizarrely cite as evidence against UCD), accept Universal Common Descent.
I can however make a number of surmises about the 8.8 million. Acceptance of evolution is higher in the scientific community than in the general public of the US, and acceptance of evolution in other developed countries (where the majority of scientists would live and work) is higher than the US.
According to a 2009 poll, 97% of US scientists accept that “Humans and other living things have evolved over time”.
No, and that was not my point. My point was that the less than one thousand that you were huffing and puffing about above is an insignificant minority.
I fully admit that there is likely to be a furtherinsignificant minority that reject universal common descent and/or evolution, but have failed to sign the petition, but would suspect that there would be a far larger number of scientists who have never even heard of YEC, ID and other such scientifically irrelevant notions.
I know. It would be an impossible ask, to fulfil. So, I’ll grant you that there are those who accept whole heartedly UCA evolution.
But then, you need to yield the point that there are others who do not accept whole heartedly that UCA is anything more than a failed speculation.
And your claim about Beje is not as you say.
"Over the past 25 years, Michael Behe has become one of the most prominent critics of the theory of evolution. "
Source: Michael Behe, Evolution Denier. – Debunking Denial
Behe is all about, stating that UCA could not have formed the irreducibly complex systems, organs and organisms, as well as just the cell.
He does not support a UTA.
And again, numbers do not mean a thing. The science that supports what is offered is what counts.
So, your argument is moot.
But, on the other hand, the rejection of UCA, by some atheists, many to most Christians, and some previous evolutionists, does compile a good representation of challengers that dispute UCA.
Again, your question is not relevant. My evidence is. And you have not supplied any evidence to support your EXPLANATIONS OFFERED.
Meaning you have only made or supplied explanations, but they contain no empirical evidence to show the explanations would cause what they being claimed to have caused.
Or to support the arguments being made.
So you won’t answer any questions? There’s no further point in trying to engage with you. I’ll just say that if you have a purpose coming here, it’s a mystery.
I have already explicitly accepted that there is an “insignificant minority” that rejects evolution, and would accept that there is a smaller and even more insignificant minority that also rejects Universal Common Descent.
So what?
I could probably find a small and insignificant minority of scientists that accept alien abductions, think Elvis is still alive, etc, etc.
And I do not yield to the claim that Universal Common Descent is a mere “failed speculation” – that is mere scientifically-illiterate nonsense.
You are continuing to ignorantly conflate denial of evolution with denial of universal common descent.
As @Faizal_Ali demonstrated here Behe accepts Universal Common Descent and explicitly talks about “the common descent of life” (not common descent within kinds).
Citation please where he explicitly rejects Universal Common Descent, not merely evolution.
No, my argument was never that Evolution is true because most scientists support it.
My argument was only that aSDfD (or any other like petition, survey, etc) only shows an “insignificant minority” of scientists opposed to evolution, so is not credible evidence against evolution.
Even of US Christians, only a minority reject evolution.[1] Outside of the US (and its culture wars) I would expect that minority to be even smaller.
Again, no point in trying to engage with you, because you refuse to engage with me. There is no possibility of a conversation when one party won’t converse. Sorry, no.