Single best evidence for common descent

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Your evidence is?
Their nested hierarchy (OP) is a mental construct.

Their icon Eldridge says no way Jose

"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Example, They can find mucho bunches of alligator fossils. They can't find squat for "almost" alligators.

The truth bites.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
Their nested hierarchy (OP) is a mental construct.

Their icon Eldridge says no way Jose

"The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist," declared Niles Eldridge, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Example, They can find mucho bunches of alligator fossils. They can't find squat for "almost" alligators.

The truth bites.
Oh I know - all the darwininan based taxonomy is circular logic.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
If you don't want to read the evidence you asked for then I am hardly going to go out of my way to provide it so you can ignore it.
What evidence? A contemporary Of Darwin who made no predictions, Herman Muller, and only spoke of "Interlocking Complexity".
 

rossum

Well-known member
What evidence? A contemporary Of Darwin who made no predictions, Herman Muller, and only spoke of "Interlocking Complexity".
Go away and read Muller (1918). You were the one who asked where those four predictions were made in the evolutionary literature. You appear unable to deal with the first of them.

Don't ask for what you won't read.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Go away and read Muller (1918). You were the one who asked where those four predictions were made in the evolutionary literature. You appear unable to deal with the first of them.

Don't ask for what you won't read.
After presenting my case, you expect me to find your material. Nice work if you can get it.
 

rossum

Well-known member
After presenting my case, you expect me to find your material. Nice work if you can get it.
No, you asked for the material in your post #257

Show where evolution makes any of these predictions. As in their literature.

You asked. I answered. You ignored my answer. I suggest you don't ask for answers you are only going to ignore, that just makes you look bad and your arguments unconvincing.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
No, you asked for the material in your post #257



You asked. I answered. You ignored my answer. I suggest you don't ask for answers you are only going to ignore, that just makes you look bad and your arguments unconvincing.
You did not answer and I suspect that you are unable to answer, therefore this ruse that you have already provided the answer. Again, your claim is that evolution makes that same predictions that ID has makes. I provided the ID predictions now show where evolution makes these same predictions without taking connecting flights to get to the answer.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You did not answer
I answered: Muller (1918) is a scientific reference. Your inability to recognise it as such is your problem, not mine. The full reference is:

Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.​

when you have read and understood that reference, there is a second reference from 1939:

Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.​

You will note that the dates on those two papers predate ID.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I answered: Muller (1918) is a scientific reference. Your inability to recognise it as such is your problem, not mine. The full reference is:

Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499.​

when you have read and understood that reference, there is a second reference from 1939:

Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.​

You will note that the dates on those two papers predate ID.
Now all you have to do is go the next step and quote the predictions that mimic ID predictions. Or is that too much to ask? Even a judge will ask a litigant to underline or quote the phrases that apply to their point even though the judge has full access to the entire document.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
Now all you have to do is go the next step and quote the predictions that mimic ID predictions. Or is that too much to ask?
I gave you the reference, it is up to you to read it. Alternatively you can take my word for what it says. Unless you actually read it for yourself you cannot be sure that I am not lying to you.

I gave a very short precis of what the literature said on those four points. You asked for the references, or are you now saying that you don't need the references?

If you want the references, then you go and read them. If you don't want to read the references then don't ask for them. You are not showing yourself well here.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I gave you the reference, it is up to you to read it. Alternatively you can take my word for what it says. Unless you actually read it for yourself you cannot be sure that I am not lying to you.

I gave a very short precis of what the literature said on those four points. You asked for the references, or are you now saying that you don't need the references?

If you want the references, then you go and read them. If you don't want to read the references then don't ask for them. You are not showing yourself well here.
Why don't you just admit that I caught you in a misstatement? All this worming around is painful to watch for anybody that happens to be listening in and it sure doesn't help your case.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Why don't you just admit that I caught you in a misstatement?
I admit no such thing. Have you read the Muller papers? If you haven't read them then you have no basis for your statement. Once again, you are not showing yourself in a good light here. When you read Mullers papers look for the phrase, "interlocking complexity".
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I admit no such thing. Have you read the Muller papers? If you haven't read them then you have no basis for your statement. Once again, you are not showing yourself in a good light here. When you read Mullers papers look for the phrase, "interlocking complexity".
I see.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
"Behe says that intelligent design theory’s predictions are coming true over time, while for every step of increasing knowledge, it gets “worse and worse” for the theory of evolution by undirected unintelligent processes."
Behe lies. Of course he says that ID makes predictions; he, like all IDers, is desperate for ID to attain the kind of credibility and respectability that evolutionary theory has. ID is not science and never can be, and he's quite prepared to make stuff up to try and fool people into believing it is.
FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
No and no. None of the things it claims to predict are predictions of ID; they are retro-fitted things that have been found. If any of these 'predictions' were found not to be the case, the answer would be simply that God chose not to do it that way. When the creating agency is an arbitrary force who is not restricted to natural processes or logical actions, nothing can be predicted.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Behe lies. Of course he says that ID makes predictions; he, like all IDers, is desperate for ID to attain the kind of credibility and respectability that evolutionary theory has. ID is not science and never can be, and he's quite prepared to make stuff up to try and fool people into believing it is.
Simply making negative assertions without addressing any of the points does not make your argument or the case for evolution any more plausible.
No and no. None of the things it claims to predict are predictions of ID; they are retro-fitted things that have been found. If any of these 'predictions' were found not to be the case, the answer would be simply that God chose not to do it that way. When the creating agency is an arbitrary force who is not restricted to natural processes or logical actions, nothing can be predicted.
Wrong again, function in junk DNA was predicted by ID long before ENCODE. In fact, an increase in functionality is an ID prediction in general. It is natural to assume that material forces will follow in certain pathways while intelligently guided forces will follow different pathways and predictions can be made based on which pathway is taken both in past and future research. The reason that ENCODE generated so much fury among securlarists is that evolution had predicted a vast sea of discarded junk DNA contrary to the ID predictions of increased discovery of functionality in every facet of life. The aftermath of ENCODE has produced a posturing by the secular community and increase in denial. Case in point.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Simply making negative assertions without addressing any of the points does not make your argument or the case for evolution any more plausible.

Wrong again, function in junk DNA was predicted by ID long before ENCODE. In fact, an increase in functionality is an ID prediction in general. It is natural to assume that material forces will follow in certain pathways while intelligently guided forces will follow different pathways and predictions can be made based on which pathway is taken both in past and future research. The reason that ENCODE generated so much fury among securlarists is that evolution had predicted a vast sea of discarded junk DNA contrary to the ID predictions of increased discovery of functionality in every facet of life. The aftermath of ENCODE has produced a posturing by the secular community and increase in denial. Case in point.
Thanks for the laugh. Go back and re-read Dover.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Thanks for the laugh. Go back and re-read Dover.
You place too much stock on Dover. This is allowing the court room of law to arbitrate where experimentation and the laboratory should be doing the talking. A scientifically illiterate judge Jones should not be a deciding factor in science. Laugh is the right phrase.
 
Top