>nothing more, nothing less.

How is it showing evolution? Explain the article to me. It is assuming evolution. If there was a painting called E Coli and a painting called B Aspirida that shared common features. You wouldn't say that they evolved from one painting. You would say that's proof that one artist did both paintings.

>Those articles were challenged very shortly after they were
>published, within a matter of several months tops; the
>Buchnera paper was published 3 years ago - if the research
>methods were likewise faulty, it would've been challenged in
>the same manner a long time ago.

Clock's still ticking.

>>No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things
>>without definite proof.

>I was referring to you calling our common ancestor with
>primates "mythical", as if all the scientific evidence
>supporting this were on the same standing as an old biblical
>fairy tale - you are the one making an ass out of yourself
>by posing your creationist nonsense as being scientific.

Evidence without proof isn't evidence. Fairly tales can be proven false, I've yet to see someone prove the bible wrong.

>>You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.
>
>No, you deny that it is evolution and call it creationism.
>The "God's impression" thing is more along the lines of LK1
>and others who reconcile God and evolution, not people like
>you who try to dismiss evolution as a sham and a myth.

I'm not trying to reconcile anything. My point is that the fact that organisms share a lot of the same features is proof of creation. Why would God create a perfectly good metabolism pathway only to change things from species. It would seem to me that if was left to evolution there would be multiple ways of getting energy from sucrose...why only have TCA cyles?

>Uh, that's not what you said, mmmkay?

This is what I said:
>What a funny world, we don't believe
>in an omniscient God,yet we're building quantum computers
>that work on the same principles.

People find it impossible that God know all possible outcomes, yet we are building quantum computers that work on the same principles.

>no, it would not "know every outcome"; each qubit would just
>be able to hold multiple values at the same time via the
>principle of superposition - that is quantum physics, not
>omniscience.

So a qubit would hold simultaneously a zero, a one, both a zero and one, and nothing...and you wouldn't know what value was until you accessed it. So if I had a memory module that was 4 qubits wide, and my computer wanted the value 0101 from ram...it would already be there. What about the value 1010? 0001? 0010? 1100? 1001? 0110? I see because, of quantum physics every outcome possible (from the computers point of view) is already stored in memory. Sort of like it knows all. That principle sounds familiar.

But let's get back to why humans evolved so much over ~700,000 generations, yet E Coli haven't. Experiments are being run on the very subject. I wouldn't call adapting evolution, though. We get a new hominid species with every new skull found. The bacteria in the experiments are still called E. Coli.