[Old_Mil]

I merely refer you any of the posts of Ichneumon(or others) who are extremely patient in their presentation of the facts.

Having read his posts, they are really no different than the posts of others - they're just longer and indicate that he has mastered the use of the CTRL-C/CTRL-V on his keyboard. I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent." Of course, the existence of this template presupposes evolutionary theory to be true.

By the way, how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?

[DoctorMichael]

".....how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?......."

Please explain.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"they're just longer and indicate that he has mastered the use of the CTRL-C/CTRL-V on his keyboard."

Actually, he writes the text of most of them himself.

"I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."

Sure you have. Ichneumon's posts would be an example. You HAVE actually read them, right?

" By the way, how're those laboratory experiments trying to induce endosymbiotic behavior in prokaryotes going?"

Which experiments?

[DoctorMichael]

".....extremely patient in their presentation of the facts......"

Might I add, "in the face of those that refuse to read them".

[Physicist]

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent." Of course, the existence of this template presupposes evolutionary theory to be true.

But it's not sufficient. Fortunately, the similarity of morphology is shown to develop over time (sometimes in stunning detail) by the time-ordered sequence of the fossil beds, and that is sufficient to establish common descent as a historical fact, without presupposing any theoretical template. But wait, there's an independent test: that entire structure is accurately mirrored by the analogous tree that can be constructed from gene sequences.

In short, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is nothing at all like your "simplistic template".

[Condorman]

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."

What does "ERV" stand for?

[steve-b]

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."

Or, as the same concept has been expressed by others:

Johnny Cochran: I have yet to see the prosecution offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "physical traces and previous actions are sufficient evidence of my client's guilt."

Mayor Nagin: I have yet to see the pundits offer an "evidence" in their stories that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "snafus in the evacuation are sufficient evidence of my incompetence."

Iraqi Information Minister: I have yet to see the media offer an "evidence" in this court that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "the pictures of American troops in Baghdad are sufficient evidence that I am lying my ass off."

[Thatcherite]

I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."

Then you haven't been looking very hard. There is so much evidence not based on "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent." that you could spend your entire life reading it.