This is either willful obfuscation or willful ignorance to conflate a parent-child relationship with ancestor-descendant relationship. Chances are if you look similar, similar features, similar muscle composition, similar brain mass, etc., you have a common ancestor.
As for vertical gene transfer, you’re not seriously putting forth this argument, are you? Are you saying that you didn’t have any genes transferred to you from your mother? That would be rather strange. The notion of horizontal gene transfer is absurd. Bees don’t transfer genes to fish. You’re grasping at straws, trying to find holes, but, again, all of this is elegantly explained by evolution.
None of your arguments are based on the evidence, and you have no counter theory to match the data. Your only argument is that evolution contradicts special creation.
This shows a complete lack of understanding of evolution. What you’ve suggested wouldn’t be proof of evolution, it would be a negation.
Here is an article, from theists that oppose the teaching of science, about why your argument is illogical.
You spend a lot of time telling me how evolution does not work … but you spend none of it telling me how it does work …
Getting genes from my parents is not the issue … If you look at my theory above the one that you became “horrified” at … states that we each have template forms that allows our diversification, but we do not step outside those template forms. The fossil record and evolutionists cannot refute that theory. In other words speciation is my main contention.
As you mentioned earlier evolution is not about the origin of life … so as my theory goes it is too not about the origin of life to have multiple template forms or a single life form that becomes many types of creatures have the same complexity and unanswered question … however, my theory is better because it does not need speciation and hence is less of a belief than evolution. It is more scientific.
I’ve been to the sites on evolution and tried to learn about how it actually works and I am getting too many gaps … even as a far as a belief is concerned it is flaky … The theory started chiefly on phenotypes … where environment directly affects the animals … then the idea of natural selection came to the fore after seeing that basic theory as nonsense … but to answer the question of genetic difference and incompatibility more theories were put in to the mix … Now we have so many different theories each attempting to address a difficult question. But by doing so they end up making the combined theory disjointed … If natural selection was the main mechanism of change then it would infer survival of the fittest but that infers improvement but then we are criticised for being silly when we note the problems in that and we are corrected with the idea of random changes … or continuous gradual changes that were introduced to explain the genetic problem … then fossil records showed that we can’t always explain things using gradualism so more ideas were put in to the mix …
When a base theory has to be decorated with so many exceptions and contexts it becomes time to abdandon the theory as a science … If it must be adhered to then do so under the auspices of faith … then I have no problem with it …
Why is it that rejection of theory of evolution means acceptance of existence of God? Shouldn't that rejection lead to, "We do not know"?
Peace kakaballi
To whom is that question addressed? I certainly do not say that "rejection of evolution means acceptance of God" that would totally betray the grounding in philosophy and logic that I have ... on the other hand you could be addressing that at the evolutionists that they are holding so tight to the theory that they feel if they let go of it they will be compelled to accept God ...
Let me make it clear ... "I personally will not hold anyone accountable for being an atheist after rejecting evolution as fact" ... they are free to believe what they must ... but I don't want evolution to be called a science although I believe there are indeed scientific elements to it ... but not in its entirety. That is all ...
I also have a few of questions. My knowledge of biology is very primitive but still some questions are bothering me:
1) If Evolution happens as Darwin hypothesized then why theory of evolution has not become a law and remained a theory?
2) I can understand that changes occur within the specie wrt color size etc but if it is true that a rather primary specie become a modern one for instance, Man originated from primates then why can't we see something intermediary specie in transition?
3) Even if we accept that all life forms (as we see around) originated from one single basic life form. even then the atheists and agnostics must admit that the evolution was very directed and managed and not chaotic, a sign of existence of a supreme being, God.
I also have a few of questions. My knowledge of biology is very primitive but still some questions are bothering me:
1) If Evolution happens as Darwin hypothesized then why theory of evolution has not become a law and remained a theory?
Because this theory has not yet been undeniably proven. Just like relativity is still a theory.
2) I can understand that changes occur within the specie wrt color size etc but if it is true that a rather primary specie become a modern one for instance, Man originated from primates then why can't we see something intermediary specie in transition?
Chimps could be intermediary species. :P
3) Even if we accept that all life forms (as we see around) originated from one single basic life form. even then the atheists and agnostics must admit that the evolution was very directed and managed and not chaotic, a sign of existence of a supreme being, God.
How can you say that evolution is "very directed and managed"?
I’m spending time correcting your wrong notions and misconceptions. You have no theory, what you have is a fantasy. You made it up. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Evolution wasn’t just made up, like your ‘theory’. Scientists proposed and accepted the idea after decades and decades of research, gathering evidence, gathering data, conducting experiments, and coming to a consensus. It isn’t the fantasy of a handful of people that want to relegate religion. It’s an accepted fact by biologists and scientists through out the world.
Please show me where scientists have made something up and it became accepted. To suggest that is preposterous and shows a complete misunderstanding of peer review and the scientific process.
I would submit, our understanding isn’t complete. It’s becoming clearer and clearer. In that quest, there are mistakes that and errors that are made. But that’s a function of discovery. Each rabbit hole, each miscalculation, each error is accounted for and progress made. That’s how science works, by building on the knowledge, and the errors, of the scientific community at large.
Science isn’t static, like scriptures from the bronze ages by people who had very little idea of the natural world. Nothing in your preferred scripture, or any other, can describe the natural world more elegantly than evolution. It can’t even come close. Scriptures can’t tell us why more than 99% or all species that ever existed on the earth are extinct now. It can’t tell us about new drugs, new treatments, new cures.
Yeah. Perhaps he can explain to us how mutations, which are the driving force for all the change that takes place in evolution, were the “good type” while we know today that all mutations are actually bad!
ok fine but why can’t we see intermediaries that bridge gaps between Homo sapiens and monkeys or chimps. There still is a huge gap. If it is an ongoing process then we should either see all the transitory forms or the only form that is recent. There are apes and humans but nothing in between as claimed. why?
Means he himself do not understand theory of evolution well 
