Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

[Martin23233]

Here is the first comment in the comments section of the video on You Tube.....

Regardless of his views on ID... he was added for his views on A God.
but he was heard saying " Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

 

[Whatsisface]

Regardless of his views on ID... he was added for his views on A God.
but he was heard saying " Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID."

This doesn't adress the point that the list had no biologists.

What with disease and natural disaster that destroy life in great numbers, no one can rationly suggest that the universe is fine tuned for life.

 

[Martin23233]

Okay, well at least we have established beyond any doubt that you do not understand what falsifiable means.

A theory is falsifiable if it makes predictions - that is, there are necessary consequences of it - that can be tested to confirm or refute it.

I'll remind you yet again that i was the one that had to explain falsifiable to you. you and you tried to conjure up some silly example of a half fish and half human to somehow claim that since it does not exist ... evolution is therefore falsifiable... I had to then expand your own logic to show how absolutely absurd that line of thinking was - just because we can't find a part fish, part crab, part corn part kangaroo... part dove and finally part human means that evolution must be falsified. just too funny
What tests have been concluded that confirm or refute evolution?

Relativity and Newtonian physics both make predictions about the orbit of Mercury. If the theory is true, then the orbit must follow a certain rule. If the orbit follows that rule, the theory is supported, if not, it is falsified.

the orbit of Mercury is observable ... something you don't have. If you wish to make things up like mermaids or mermen.... then you can make up anything not being found to exist with proof... and call it science showing evolution as being 'falsified'.

It is this possibility of being falsified by the prediction turning out to be wrong.

As it turned out, Newtonian physics was falsified, relativity was not. Both falsifiable; one falsified.

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. If the nest hierarchy is broken - say by the existence of a mermaid - the evolution would be falsified. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable.

You assume much..... how would the existence of part human and part fish break the hierarchy? ... and yes evolution requires a nested hierarchy... sadly it is not all shown in the fossil record... does that too falsify it?

What you are mocking here is your own position, insisting that an event can only be studied scientifically if that event can be repeated. That is nonsense, as you now seem to appreciate, so I guess that is progress.

you seem to like to misrepresent things when you get cornered and cant answer.

That is not true. You said they were not descendant of wolves at all. You are adding "modern" because you know you have been proed wrong, and want to change your position.

Here is what you actually said:

Sure - going back to your subjective belief that dogs evolved from wolves. Dogs actually evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet (oddly since you are so adamant that everything is right where it needs to be in the sedimentary record).​

Please take a deep breath and try to re-read for comprehension here. I stated several times that dogs did not evolve from modern wolves.... and I backed that up by a heavily peer reviewed study by several acclaimed scientists. AND NOW here you are trying to cherry pick and twist one post that actually PROVES my point that dogs actually should have lineage from some dog/wolf type creature that we have not found This PROVES that what i stated was honest.. and that dogs did not evolve from wolves.... but some other dog-like wolf-like creature.....

Frankly, this sort of chicanery says a lot about creationism. When you get caught saying something that is wrong, the honest thing to do is to hold up your hand and admit it, then move on.

I hope that you can do that at some point instead of spin and dodge. ...just admit it ...you don't know

I guess the one positive here is that at least you now agree with me that dogs are descended from wolves, not "a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet".

So so wrong again... why hide? dogs clearly (as shown from your own weaker Smithsonian link shows that dog and wolves likely evolved from some other creature (likely not a wolf... likely not a dog) that has not been discovered.....

 

[Martin23233]

Did you read that page? Or just Google and pasted anything that sounds vaguely relevant?

None of those proofs are science, they are all maths. Yes, there are proofs in maths, and yes, those proofs may well be used in science, but none of those mathematical proofs actually prove any scientific claim. You would realise that if you have actually looked at what the proofs are.

Oh wow... did you just infer that mathematics have not been used (and required especially in quantum fields) ? at least you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you state: "Yes, there are proofs in maths, and yes, those proofs may well be used in science"...and they you go on to somehow disconnect from what you just stated by fumbling out this silliness: "but none of those mathematical proofs actually prove any scientific claim" One can't make that kind of self contradiction up if they were honest.

None of which even vaguely suggests evolution is wrong.

See, this is the point, Martin. Yes, the fossil record is incomplete, but all the fossils we have conform to evolution. A lack of data cannot disprove anything.

So , translation... "yes we don't have a complete fossil record that shows the required step by step gradual blind and random development of species... but our faith in material things we can't prove is enough for us to worship in the crumbling house of darwinism. we hope to find them someday along with that mermaid"
I'm ok with evolution as a theory by a person who had no real scientific degree or training. I just have a problem with how it has so much

It is interesting that your own claim earlier actually relies on the broken fossil record: "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet". You reject evolution because the fossil record is supposedly broken, and yet happily ignore that when it suits you.

I happily disabuse your claims that dogs evolved from wolves.... which you gleefully bit on and fought against.. and yet here we sit .. with another broken example of your faith in fossils... and YES.... i agree with the science .. dogs evolved from some creature we don't know of yet... even with the relative nature of such early fossil records. (approx 20K years old) we just can't find it....yet

Do you ever actually think about your posts? Last time around you said:

so so many leading scientist would disagree with you.... and i'd tend to pick their thinking vs yours.​

Now, after I point out that actually 99% of biologists side with me, doing what you do is a fallacy!

your assertion was proven wrong. and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points

Find me a Nobel prize winning who is a biologist and rejects evolution.

https://ncse.ngo/evolution-winner-breakthroughs-and-prizes

And literally 10,000s of top scientists - more specifically biologists - who accept evolution.

And a lot of them are Christians.

let's put your 99% embarrassment to bed

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

so many nobel prize winners have demonstrated disbelief in darwinian evo.... were they biologist not that I know of but we have 100s of biologists that actually don't see the agenda the way you do. ...and a lot of them are not Christians. ... (as if it matters since you are all about the step by step science)

Of course not. My point is that it shows a casual disregard for facts, which you are confirming here. Who cares what the truth is? If you think it is so, then just say it. No need to actually check if there is any basis in reality for the nonsense you spout, right?

I do not know how to spell tiktaalik either. I am not suggesting I am way more knowledgeable than you. However, I looked it up.

and in my original response I too looked it up and responded with the facts that that fossil was kicked to the curb long long ago as a transitional fossil .. but yeah.. just because an actual tetrapod stepped on top of the tiktaalik toc toe fossil embarrassed scientists proclaiming that this strata will product the transitional fossil (they were wrong by many millions of years... and the fossil does not even show that it was an early tetrapod...just that it maybe could of been the beginning of one possibly.

I am typically looking at a dozen or so web sites each time I reply to you, and include several of them in my posts, because I want to be sure of what I post. I do not want to look like an idiot because I confidently said dogs "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet" and then later have to lie and pretend I said something else. I prefer to check what I say before hand and get it right.

so you lie again.. but i understand why... you can't find my quotes and you wish to spin things to make you think you might be right. but in the end .... even after the several times that I stated that dogs did not evolve from modern wolves... and the one time that i stated that dogs likely evolved from a wolve/dog like creature... it means just that... it was not a wolf.... but possibly a wolf/dog or dog/wolf... we just don't know..nor do you.

Already answered a few posts ago, so please do not pretend I dodged a question here.

Because they were used for other things, and got co-opted to the new function.

Too funny not going to let you wiggle away on that one... Please answer exactly how (in your best darwinian evo mind) explain how evolution can account for front loading the design for the eye(Pax gene) and limbs(Hox gene) millions of years before ever expression or developing said naturally selected random benefits of said genes?
Exactly how did the PAX gene get co-opted from another function?...what function was that exactly?... and how would that even explain why genes were in existence well before they were ever even need for your 'co-opted' purpose? (that one I would love to hear about )

---

I am not getting at you here. I appreciate you are just parroting what you are told to believe. The point here is that there are questions creationism cannot answer, and so quietly ignores them. I hope - possibly in vain - that you will actually think for yourself about some of these, and think about why creationists cannot answer them.

I am not getting through to you here..... and would really appreciate my turn to get you to answer an honest question for once.... about the front loading of genes..... if all you can do is just say that ..... welp... they must be used for some other purpose and got 'co-opted' for something else...
that says nothing about why the gene existed in the first place long before any 'co-opt'. what is the evolutionary mech that developed these genes?

 

[Martin23233]

This doesn't adress the point that the list had no biologists.

What with disease and natural disaster that destroy life in great numbers, no one can rationly suggest that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Clear example of false equivalency : just because you think that life can end/degrade/experience pain in no way relates to the creation of life.

there are ample links from leading science sources that show why the universe is fine tuned...and why our planet is uniquely fine tuned for life like no other detected anywhere (yet at least)

 

[Whatsisface]

Clear example of false equivalency : just because you think that life can end/degrade/experience pain in no way relates to the creation of life.

Did you actualy read my post? This has nothing to do with what I said..

there are ample links from leading science sources that show why the universe is fine tuned...and why our planet is uniquely fine tuned for life like no other detected anywhere (yet at least)

This does not address my point.

 

[The Pixie]

I'll remind you yet again that i was the one that had to explain falsifiable to you.

But the point is that you are WRONG.

It is not the same as repeatable.

you and you tried to conjure up some silly example of a half fish and half human to somehow claim that since it does not exist ... evolution is therefore falsifiable... I had to then expand your own logic to show how absolutely absurd that line of thinking was - just because we can't find a part fish, part crab, part corn part kangaroo... part dove and finally part human means that evolution must be falsified. just too funny

You say my example is silly because you persist in your mistaken belief that falsifiability is the same as repeatability.

I gave you two links that explain it well. Did you read them? Of course not! You cling to your ignorance and think a mocking tone somehow makes you right. It does not.

I keep asking you this, and you keep dodging it:

Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?

I think by now it is clear that you have no clue about what falsifiable actually means, because otherwise this would be trivial for you. It again looks like this is something you have been told to believe is true, without you actually bothering to think whether it is or not - or even what it means!

Here are the links again. Serious, you need to read them.

Criterion of falsifiability | philosophy of science

criterion of falsifiability, in the philosophy of science, a standard of evaluation of putatively scientific theories, according to which a theory is genuinely scientific only if it is possible in principle to establish that it is false. The British philosopher Sir Karl Popper (1902–94)...

www.britannica.com

Evolution myths: Evolution cannot be disproved

There are all sorts of findings and experiments that could have falsified evolution. In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his theory, not one has

www.newscientist.com

Or if you are sure you are right, find links of your own that support your position. If you are correct, that should be easy to do.

What tests have been concluded that confirm or refute evolution?

Countless, but two very broad answers are the fossil record and genetic studies (such as chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA).

I already told you about cytochrome-c differences between species; an excellent confirmation you are still unable to counter.

There is also the distribution of different eyes types as discussed.

The vitamin C pseudogene is another great example.

the orbit of Mercury is observable ... something you don't have. If you wish to make things up like mermaids or mermen.... then you can make up anything not being found to exist with proof... and call it science showing evolution as being 'falsified'.

Actually there is a shedload of data that confirms evolution. Two very broad answers are the fossil record and genetic studies (such as chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DN A). I already told you about cytochrome-c differences between species. There is also the distribution of different eyes types as discussed. The vitamin C pseudogene is another great example.

You assume much..... how would the existence of part human and part fish break the hierarchy? ... and yes evolution requires a nested hierarchy... sadly it is not all shown in the fossil record... does that too falsify it?

You object that I "assume" evolution requires a nested hierarchy, then you admit that that is the case? What are you talking about Martin? Do you actually think before you type? Is "You assume much" a stock phrase you have been told to regurgitate, regardless of whether it is relevant?

No, the nested hierarchy is not shown perfectly in the fossil record, but solely because there are gaps in the record. Of the millions of fossils we do have, all fit into the nested hierarchy.

It would be fossils (or species, such as mermaids) that do not fit the nested hierarchy that would falsify evolution. And so far zero have been found. Why do you think that is?

Please take a deep breath and try to re-read for comprehension here. I stated several times that dogs did not evolve from modern wolves....
and I backed that up by a heavily peer reviewed study by several acclaimed scientists. AND NOW here you are trying to cherry pick and twist one post that actually PROVES my point that dogs actually should have lineage from some dog/wolf type creature that we have not found This PROVES that what i stated was honest.. and that dogs did not evolve from wolves.... but some other dog-like wolf-like creature.....

I hope that you can do that at some point instead of spin and dodge. ...just admit it ...you don't know

So so wrong again... why hide? dogs clearly (as shown from your own weaker Smithsonian link shows that dog and wolves likely evolved from some other creature (likely not a wolf... likely not a dog) that has not been discovered.....

All the articles you have provide and all the articles I have provided say that dogs evolved from wolves. Not from modern wolves, but I never said that, and previously you did not make that distinction either.

If you want to stubbornly pretend otherwise, that is up to you. That would be entirely what we expect from creationists - believe what you are told to believe, and above all avoid actually thinking. You might wake up and find realise the truth.

 

[The Pixie]

Oh wow... did you just infer that mathematics have not been used (and required especially in quantum fields) ?

No I did not. In fact I said "those proofs may well be used in science", so quite the reverse.

at least you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you state: "Yes, there are proofs in maths, and yes, those proofs may well be used in science"...and they you go on to somehow disconnect from what you just stated by fumbling out this silliness: "but none of those mathematical proofs actually prove any scientific claim" One can't make that kind of self contradiction up if they were honest.

Again you betray your lack of knowledge of science.

A simple example would be F=ma. Very simple maths that is used to model nature. But the maths does not prove it is right.

So now it is your turn Martin. You are accusing me of not being honest here, which I find insulting, so let us see how honest you are. Step up to the plate and show us you are right and I am wrong.

Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.

If you cannot - and we both know you cannot - then I will expect an apology for your false accusation. Unless your pride is too great, of course.

So , translation... "yes we don't have a complete fossil record that shows the required step by step gradual blind and random development of species... but our faith in material things we can't prove is enough for us to worship in the crumbling house of darwinism.

We do not need faith because we already have overwhelming evidence. Over a million fossils. Tonnes of genetic data. Etc. Etc.

And we are getting more and more literally every week.

How is creationism doing?

So , translation... "yes we don't have a complete fossil record that shows the required step by step gradual blind and random development of species... but our faith in material things we can't prove is enough for us to worship in the crumbling house of darwinism. we hope to find them someday along with that mermaid"

You still are failing to get the point of the mermaids.

Mermaids would falsify evolution. That means: (1) they would prove it wrong; and (2) evolution is falsifiable.

Seriously, this is like talking to a brick wall. Go learn what falsifiable means!

I'm ok with evolution as a theory by a person who had no real scientific degree or training. I just have a problem with how it has so much

So much what? I am guessing evidence.

You have a problem with how it has so much evidence.

your assertion was proven wrong.

You have a vivid imagination.

and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points

Yes, I ignore 100s of leading scientists who reject evolution.

Just as you ignore the 10,000s of leading biologists who accept evolution.

I think I am in a better position here. My biologists outnumber your engineers 100 to 1.

let's put your 99% embarrassment to bed

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

so many nobel prize winners have demonstrated disbelief in darwinian evo.... were they biologist not that I know of but we have 100s of biologists that actually don't see the agenda the way you do. ...and a lot of them are not Christians. ... (as if it matters since you are all about the step by step science)

I am not embarrassed about agreeing with 99% of biologists.

So who are these Nobel prize winners? What is their area of expertise, Martin? If it is not biology, why should I take them as an authority on biology?

What you have is a very small number of Nobel prize winners who are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject, and a few hundred other scientists, a lot of whom are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject.

Meanwhile, I have 10,000s of biologists who ARE knowledgeable in the subject who agree with me.

and in my original response I too looked it up and responded with the facts that that fossil was kicked to the curb long long ago as a transitional fossil .. but yeah.. just because an actual tetrapod stepped on top of the tiktaalik toc toe fossil embarrassed scientists proclaiming that this strata will product the transitional fossil (they were wrong by many millions of years... and the fossil does not even show that it was an early tetrapod...just that it maybe could of been the beginning of one possibly.

As I asked last time:

And that refuted evolution how?​

If you cannot tell me, that is because it does not.​

I guess I can add that to the list of questions you keep dodging.

so you lie again..

I have not lied. All have said is, to the best of my knowledge, true and I have taken some effort to verify it is true.

I have to tell you that if you make such an accusation again, I will report you.

I am typically looking at a dozen or so web sites each time I reply to you, and include several of them in my posts, because I want to be sure of what I post. I do not want to look like an idiot because I confidently said dogs "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet" and then later have to lie and pretend I said something else. I prefer to check what I say before hand and get it right.

so you lie again.. but i understand why... you can't find my quotes and you wish to spin things to make you think you might be right.

I quoted you right there in the text, Martin. It is not me lying.

You said dogs "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet". I quoted you saying that. Do not try to pretend otherwise.

Too funny not going to let you wiggle away on that one...

Sure, I will get right on that... As soon as you answer the questions you have been ducking for the last three posts.

Do you need them again? No problem.

• I asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
• I asked how creationism explains the pattern of differences in a protein; you dodged it
• I asked why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish; you dodged it
• I asked why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas; you dodged it
• I asked what your belief is with regards to creation; you even dodged that!

I am going to add to that: learn what falsifiable means.

I am not a biologist, and explaining the mechanisms of limb and eye evolution would require a fair bit of research on my part. I will happily do that, but first you have to do your bit. Show me creationism can answer these question. Show me you can.

If you cannot be bothered, then why should I?

If you are unable to, well, you lose. Evolution can explain these things, it even predicts some of them. If creationism cannot explain them, the conclusion is that creationism is wrong.

It is time for you to step up to the plate Martin. It is time for you to show us what creationism really is.

I confidently expect you to fail. In fact, I am sure you will not even try, and for everyone else, the message will be clear: Creationism is wrong.

I just hope it will make YOU think about the failings of creationism, at least enough to start questioning it. Go to creationist web sites and ask them. Talk to your creationist friends. See if any creationist anywhere has the answers. And if not, think about why.

 

[Martin23233]

Did you actualy read my post? This has nothing to do with what I said..

Of course I read it. your post does not seem to make any logical correlation to why is the universe so fine tuned for life when so much disease or destruction exists? ( from what it looked like you are questioning that fine tuning did not make sense) My response was to expose the false equivalency of the creation / existence of life and then the stand that the end/or impairment of life after it's creation should somehow disprove this fine tuned nature of the universe towards life. Probably the easiest and most simple(and acceptable from a scientific nature) is entropy.... any observation shows that the universe will likely end according this concept regardless of the degree that it once possessed for life's fine tuning.... and it proves that there was much more order (tuning) that eventually comes 'unwound'.

 

[Whatsisface]

Of course I read it. your post does not seem to make any logical correlation to why is the universe so fine tuned for life when so much disease or destruction exists? ( from what it looked like you are questioning that fine tuning did not make sense) My response was to expose the false equivalency of the creation / existence of life and then the stand that the end/or impairment of life after it's creation should somehow disprove this fine tuned nature of the universe towards life. Probably the easiest and most simple(and acceptable from a scientific nature) is entropy.... any observation shows that the universe will likely end according this concept regardless of the degree that it once possessed for life's fine tuning.... and it proves that there was much more order (tuning) that eventually comes 'unwound'.

I don't see why it's a false equivalency. The question is, is the universe fine tuned for life? The fundamental constants certainly allow for life as we know it. But if our immediate environment destroys life, which it does, and as our immediate environment is part of the universe, you can't say the universe is fine tuned for life.

The fine tuning argument is meant to point to God, but it's inconsitent in the extreme that God would go to the trouble of fine tuning the constants, but then allow earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami and floods, disease, predators, etc etc that kill in great numbers and horrific ways.

 

[Algor]

Still waiting for the proof that DNA must imply intelligent design, as our friend Martin said it did when asked for an unambiguous feature of design. Strangely, when pressed for these marvellous proofs he says he has, he comes up a bit dry. He’s probably a bit distracted.

 

[Martin23233]

You say my example is silly because you persist in your mistaken belief that falsifiability is the same as repeatability.

I gave you two links that explain it well. Did you read them? Of course not! You cling to your ignorance and think a mocking tone somehow makes you right. It does not.

I have never stated such a thing about repeatability besides the scientific proofs and mathematical proofs that you somehow feel don't belong in science (as you keep claiming that science is never proven). not mocking...just offering up some better science... Better science has lead us away from the flat earthers...or the earth centric fans... or the sun centric gang. Better science is now (and has for 40 years) exposing the known gaps in evolution theory... and exposing the falsehoods in the, still taught agenda.

I keep asking you this, and you keep dodging it:

Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?

xxxxxxxxx

Countless, but two very broad answers are the fossil record and genetic studies (such as chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA).

you were already made aware that that common building blocks point to common design. Humans have massive DNA similarities to dolphins too.... and to kangaroos.

I already told you about cytochrome-c differences between species; an excellent confirmation you are still unable to counter.

Gibberish - you should read up more on it if you are trying to use it to claim what you think it does; (and you assume that 30% difference doesn't matter much ha)

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced-002.pdf

Quote : "
The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used, the 648 base pair (bp) segment of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI),,,,
The pattern of life seen in barcodes is a commensurable whole made from thousands of individual
studies that together yield a generalization. The clustering of barcodes has two equally important features: 1) the variance within clusters is low, and 2) the sequence gap among clusters is empty, i.e., intermediates are not found.,,,
And:
"Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I DNA barcodes (COI barcodes, often shortened to “DNA barcodes” or “barcodes” in this article) began as an aid to animal species identification and made no claims of contributing to evolutionary theory. Five million DNA barcodes later the consistent and commensurable pattern they present throughout the animal kingdom is one of the most general in biology. In well-studied groups the majority of DNA barcode clusters agree with domain experts’ judgment of distinct species."

as in not-so-common even if you feel that 30% ain't much to worry about....
And:
"
Cytochrome C
Excerpt: If the existence of cytochrome C in “higher forms” of animals is the result of evolution from a common ancestor, then one would expect to see a logical progression. That is, the cytochrome C of an invertebrate (like a worm) would be slightly different from a bacteria. A “primitive” vertebrate (like a fish) would have those same differences, plus a few more. As you progress along the presumed evolutionary path to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, ending with humans, you should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
On the other hand, if cytochrome C is a commonly used component employed by a designer, you will not see that logical progression. You will just see minor differences which optimize cytochrome C for that kind of creature.,,,
Dr. Denton’s Figure 12.1, “The Cytochromes Percent Sequence Difference Matrix” 3, is an abridged version of the 1972 Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function Matrix of nearly 1089 entries showing the percent difference between 33 species. Denton’s abridged matrix shows that molecular biologists can easily recognize which cytochrome C sample came from a fish and which came from a mammal.
“However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that every identifiable subclass is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups

Which makes your point about it being different in other species....but hey..it's just another peer reviewed top study that causes doubt....so you may not take it seriously. and yet scientist have known this for 50 years now.

Ok- Strike one

There is also the distribution of different eyes types as discussed.

Strike two. we have exhausted the fact that eyes formed in massive and unconnected (should of been inherited as per Dawinian requirements and your 'nested h. view) species and at an incredible speed that rules out the long slow blind trial and error of unguided steps.

The vitamin C pseudogene is another great example.

Strike 3 - we already established that the same vit-C gene mutation existed in the guinea pig....not related to humans but it does not exist in many other species.

You object that I "assume" evolution requires a nested hierarchy, then you admit that that is the case? What are you talking about Martin? Do you actually think before you type? Is "You assume much" a stock phrase you have been told to regurgitate, regardless of whether it is relevant?

I didn't object at all...please try to read carefully. I actually call out your repeated proclamation that it MUST be nested and hierarchical... and step by step ancestor by ancestor. ( you do assume much if you keep miss-stating my clearly written position).
and I point it out how much faith you must have in all these missing steps.... in your nested position. I applaud your consistent approach to faith in dariwin evo theory... no objection at all.

No, the nested hierarchy is not shown perfectly in the fossil record, but solely because there are gaps in the record. Of the millions of fossils we do have, all fit into the nested hierarchy.

Hmm so you are basically saying ( yeah the fossil record is is not perfect..... but it's only because there are gaps in the fossil record)... ok, that seems a bit odd and redundant and backs my point up that you have no nested hierarchy. And yet you continue to claim that what you think you do have magically fills in this 'nested hierarchy' Saying so ain't showing so. and so far you have failed to show it. you talk a good evo-devo game but when put to task the best you can do here is claim that what we know of so far is good enough. It may well be for you... but many scientists disagree.

It would be fossils (or species, such as mermaids) that do not fit the nested hierarchy that would falsify evolution. And so far zero have been found. Why do you think that is?

you have failed to show the mechanism to which it is possible for a part crab, part mushroom, part fish and part human could even exist in the 'nested hierarchy'... and then it's absence support your thinking. you do see how silly that example is right? ( I hope)

All the articles you have provide and all the articles I have provided say that dogs evolved from wolves. Not from modern wolves, but I never said that, and previously you did not make that distinction either.

If you want to stubbornly pretend otherwise, that is up to you. That would be entirely what we expect from creationists - believe what you are told to believe, and above all avoid actually thinking. You might wake up and find realise the truth.

Let's correct your thinking on that one...and if you want to wake up or not that's up to you:

“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations” But what they did show is some common ancestor linkage that had gone extinct….
If we want to play games and assume dogs actually did actually arise from a wolf that's fine.... i'll stick with the peer reviewed study...and go with some common ancestor not yet known / found. (but dang those Nutrino dog food commercials can really really be so convincing ... so much so i'm on the fence on this one ...lol)

 

[Martin23233]

You say my example is silly because you persist in your mistaken belief that falsifiability is the same as repeatability.

I gave you two links that explain it well. Did you read them? Of course not! You cling to your ignorance and think a mocking tone somehow makes you right. It does not.

I have never stated such a thing about repeatability besides the scientific proofs and mathematical proofs that you somehow feel don't belong in science (as you keep claiming that science is never proven). not mocking...just offering up some better science... Better science has lead us away from the flat earthers...or the earth centric fans... or the sun centric gang. Better science is now (and has for 40 years) exposing the known gaps in evolution theory... and exposing the falsehoods in the, still taught agenda.

Countless, but two very broad answers are the fossil record and genetic studies (such as chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA).

you were already made aware that that common building blocks point to common design. Humans have massive DNA similarities to dolphins too.... and to kangaroos.

I already told you about cytochrome-c differences between species; an excellent confirmation you are still unable to counter.

Gibberish - you should read up more on it if you are trying to use it to claim what you think it does; (and you assume that 30% difference doesn't matter much ha)

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced-002.pdf

Quote : "
The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used, the 648 base pair (bp) segment of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI),,,,
The pattern of life seen in barcodes is a commensurable whole made from thousands of individual
studies that together yield a generalization. The clustering of barcodes has two equally important features: 1) the variance within clusters is low, and 2) the sequence gap among clusters is empty, i.e., intermediates are not found.,,,
And:
"Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I DNA barcodes (COI barcodes, often shortened to “DNA barcodes” or “barcodes” in this article) began as an aid to animal species identification and made no claims of contributing to evolutionary theory. Five million DNA barcodes later the consistent and commensurable pattern they present throughout the animal kingdom is one of the most general in biology. In well-studied groups the majority of DNA barcode clusters agree with domain experts’ judgment of distinct species."

as in not-so-common even if you feel that 30% ain't much to worry about....
And:
"
Cytochrome C
Excerpt: If the existence of cytochrome C in “higher forms” of animals is the result of evolution from a common ancestor, then one would expect to see a logical progression. That is, the cytochrome C of an invertebrate (like a worm) would be slightly different from a bacteria. A “primitive” vertebrate (like a fish) would have those same differences, plus a few more. As you progress along the presumed evolutionary path to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, ending with humans, you should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
On the other hand, if cytochrome C is a commonly used component employed by a designer, you will not see that logical progression. You will just see minor differences which optimize cytochrome C for that kind of creature.,,,
Dr. Denton’s Figure 12.1, “The Cytochromes Percent Sequence Difference Matrix” 3, is an abridged version of the 1972 Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function Matrix of nearly 1089 entries showing the percent difference between 33 species. Denton’s abridged matrix shows that molecular biologists can easily recognize which cytochrome C sample came from a fish and which came from a mammal.
“However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that every identifiable subclass is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups

Which makes your point about it being different in other species....but hey..it's just another peer reviewed top study that causes doubt....so you may not take it seriously. and yet scientist have known this for 50 years now.

Ok- Strike one

There is also the distribution of different eyes types as discussed.

Strike two. we have exhausted the fact that eyes formed in massive and unconnected (should of been inherited as per Dawinian requirements and your 'nested h. view) species and at an incredible speed that rules out the long slow blind trial and error of unguided steps.

The vitamin C pseudogene is another great example.

Strike 3 - we already established that the same vit-C gene mutation existed in the guinea pig....not related to humans but it does not exist in many other species.

You object that I "assume" evolution requires a nested hierarchy, then you admit that that is the case? What are you talking about Martin? Do you actually think before you type? Is "You assume much" a stock phrase you have been told to regurgitate, regardless of whether it is relevant?

I didn't object at all...please try to read carefully. I actually call out your repeated proclamation that it MUST be nested and hierarchical... and step by step ancestor by ancestor. ( you do assume much if you keep miss-stating my clearly written position).
and I point it out how much faith you must have in all these missing steps.... in your nested position. I applaud your consistent approach to faith in dariwin evo theory... no objection at all.

No, the nested hierarchy is not shown perfectly in the fossil record, but solely because there are gaps in the record. Of the millions of fossils we do have, all fit into the nested hierarchy.

Hmm so you are basically saying ( yeah the fossil record is is not perfect..... but it's only because there are gaps in the fossil record)... ok, that seems a bit odd and redundant and backs my point up that you have no nested hierarchy. And yet you continue to claim that what you think you do have magically fills in this 'nested hierarchy' Saying so ain't showing so. and so far you have failed to show it. you talk a good evo-devo game but when put to task the best you can do here is claim that what we know of so far is good enough. It may well be for you... but many scientists disagree.

It would be fossils (or species, such as mermaids) that do not fit the nested hierarchy that would falsify evolution. And so far zero have been found. Why do you think that is?

you have failed to show the mechanism to which it is possible for a part crab, part mushroom, part fish and part human could even exist in the 'nested hierarchy'... and then it's absence support your thinking. you do see how silly that example is right? ( I hope)

All the articles you have provide and all the articles I have provided say that dogs evolved from wolves. Not from modern wolves, but I never said that, and previously you did not make that distinction either.

If you want to stubbornly pretend otherwise, that is up to you. That would be entirely what we expect from creationists - believe what you are told to believe, and above all avoid actually thinking. You might wake up and find realise the truth.

Let's correct your thinking on that one...and if you want to wake up or not that's up to you:

“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations” But what they did show is some common ancestor linkage that had gone extinct….
If we want to play games and assume dogs actually did actually arise from a wolf that's fine.... i'll stick with the peer reviewed study...and go with some common ancestor not yet known / found. (but dang those Nutrino dog food commercials can really really be so convincing ... so much so i'm on the fence on this one ...lol)

 

[Algor]

I don't see why it's a false equivalency. The question is, is the universe fine tuned for life? The fundamental constants certainly allow for life as we know it. But if our immediate environment destroys life, which it does, and as our immediate environment is part of the universe, you can't say the universe is fine tuned for life.

The fine tuning argument is meant to point to God, but it's inconsitent in the extreme that God would go to the trouble of fine tuning the constants, but then allow earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami and floods, disease, predators, etc etc that kill in great numbers and horrific ways.

It is a bit difficult to contemplate the ways of some spirochetes, trypanosomes and assorted parasites and to celebrate fine tuning. Seems perverse.

 

[Martin23233]

No I did not. In fact I said "those proofs may well be used in science", so quite the reverse.

So how do square the three times you actually said "science is not proven"....? can't wait for that one. Are you trying to state that mathematical proofs used by/in science ...don't count as proving science (in many cases)?

Again you betray your lack of knowledge of science.

your lack of logical sentence construction is telling - hopefully you will rephrase your assertion to point to a lack of knowledge instead of supporting a betrayal of a lack of knowledge. <insert wink face here>

We do not need faith because we already have overwhelming evidence. Over a million fossils. Tonnes of genetic data. Etc. Etc.

Saying so clearly does not align with the scientific data that shows missing fossil records....and why many scientist keep bailing your faith every year.

And we are getting more and more literally every week.

yep more disjointed ..and none that fill the gaps.... you need to fill the gaps... or just keep up your faith.

How is creationism doing?

seems to be doing pretty good since you have nothing that you can shoot it down with... but the dents in in darwin keep on hitting.

You still are failing to get the point of the mermaids.

Mermaids would falsify evolution. That means: (1) they would prove it wrong; and (2) evolution is falsifiable.

Seriously, this is like talking to a brick wall. Go learn what falsifiable means!

sad how you miss the whole point of falsification... by what mechanism can your 'merman/mermaid' even exist...if you can't show it ..you can't falsify it. you should clearly grasp that much...as you can't show where a part crab, part mushroom, part dolphin and part human existed either... and that does not falsify evolution.... sorry but you can't wiggle out of it.

Yes, I ignore 100s of leading scientists who reject evolution.

Just as you ignore the 10,000s of leading biologists who accept evolution.

I think I am in a better position here. My biologists outnumber your engineers 100 to 1.

wrong again.. my post clearly stated Thousands (not 100) but maybe you did not read it ... figures...
do you often misrepresent other's posts? if so why do you misrepresent what others clearly post?
So by your (new) math then you are failing you openly claimed that 99%...and now it's down to 90 percent ..... I get it..your agenda forces you to type untruths... but we all do that sometimes... but lets see if you are honest enough about it.

I am not embarrassed about agreeing with 99% of biologists.

I am not surprised ... if you read the link you'll see who they are.

What you have is a very small number of Nobel prize winners who are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject, and a few hundred other scientists, a lot of whom are not biologists, so NOT knowledgeable in the subject.

how ignorant of a post... so your saying that a nobel prize winner only gains knowledge if they win a prize ( political prize at that) .. so the day before they won...they just like any other qualifier... NOT knowledgeable... how silly you seem.

I guess I can add that to the list of questions you keep dodging.

you will get answers once you stop hiding. and answer my question.... still waiting.

I have not lied. All have said is, to the best of my knowledge, true and I have taken some effort to verify it is true.

I have to tell you that if you make such an accusation again, I will report you.

you have no leg to stand on .. please stop with your silly fluffy threats.

I quoted you right there in the text, Martin. It is not me lying.

You said dogs "evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet". I quoted you saying that. Do not try to pretend otherwise.

if you can read you will see that the study said that dogs likely evolved from a dog/wolf like .... not a wolf. it can't get much simpler than that.

Sure, I will get right on that... As soon as you answer the questions you have been ducking for the last three posts.

So please.... stop dodging the questions i asked you before .... if you can't answer then just say you don't know... you have no know answer .... that is just fine... please address the issue of 'front loading' and what mechanism evolution uses to front load genes it does not need for millions of years or does not need at all? how does evolution explain that (and i am specifically asking you to address what makes it co-opted ..how so?..show your work...or plead faith)
TIA

 

[Martin23233]

If it's not fully understood, how can you say it's designed?

Inference (scientists use inference as a common direction of thought/resolution) I.O.W.. if it looks like it is designed... it very well is designed. What ID does not do is state who or what designed X. it only detects design... tests whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means.

Snowflakes look designed, but the mechanism that forms them is well understood, and there's no intelligence needed.

the orbits of planets too look to follow some common mechanism ... but neither snowflakes and orbits are 'alive'. they both follow laws of 'nature' if you will... they have no random unguided selection factor... big big difference if you understand it.

 

[Algor]

Inference (scientists use inference as a common direction of thought/resolution) I.O.W.. if it looks like it is designed... it very well is designed. What ID does not do is state who or what designed X. it only detects design... tests whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means.

And to date has not identified a single unequivocal signature of design in biological systems. And we all know why that is.

 

[Martin23233]

It is a bit difficult to contemplate the ways of some spirochetes, trypanosomes and assorted parasites and to celebrate fine tuning. Seems perverse.

We can most certainly show spot on evidence that the universe is exactly fine tuned for life. we can't say why... but we can say how. We need look not further than our own planet... it is specifically tuned for life like no other planet that we have detected out of the millions and million of planets thus far detected. Fine tuning is a proven scientific methodology that is used to determine the potential for life to form.

 

[Algor]

We can most certainly show spot on evidence that the universe is exactly fine tuned for life.

No you can’t: you have no idea what the denominator of possible universes is actually is and you have no way of testing it.

The stuff you come out with is perfectly idiotish.

 

[Martin23233]

And to date has not identified a single unequivocal signature of design in biological systems. And we all know why that is.

you probably have not heard of DNA yet... fascinating structure that uses coded sequences (and we have never discovered code anywhere else that was not of intelligent origin for life). Sure we have mathematical principles that hold true and are proven across all studies of science...and used in science to prove scientific studies... similarly we have laws of nature (some not fully understood like gravity)..that prove or repeat out consistently . but DNA is the code of life... which is why we have been trying for years and years to try and find intelligent life out there by finding transmissions ( detectable coded information)....

Dawkins: DNA is Encoded Digital Information in the “Strong Sense” – Uncommon Descent

uncommondescent.com