What does falsifiable mean?
I have never stated such a thing about repeatability...
Here is the exchange:
Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?
we can repeat...over and over full examples of the First Law of Thermodynamics... we can't repeat anything remotely related to how darwinian evolution actually worked.... cool theory though.
So yes, Martin, you pretty clearly did say that the First Law of Thermodynamics is falsifiable because "
we can repeat...over and over full examples", and that is repeatability.
I appreciate this is just nonsense you are spouting at this point - you know it and I know it - but if you are going to pretend you never said, you really should understand that I will go back though your posts and point out the truth.
I earlier said:
I keep asking you this, and you keep dodging it:
Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?
You have no idea, do you? You clearly know that it is different to repeatable, but you just have no clue what falsifiable actually means.
Or you know perfectly well, and you also know that if you admit it, you will lose the argument, and you lack the integrity to admit it. I am not sure which is more damning, to be honest. Either way, you lost the argument.
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.
None of which relates to my point about there being a shedload of evidence for evolution.
The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
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)
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."
I will quote the note at the top of the paper:
Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or
"Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events.
I think what has happened here is creationists have stumbled upon this paper, not understood it properly (or have understood it, but lie about it), and present it as supporting creationism. The authors, horrified that their work is linked to pseudo-science, added the above note.
You have then copy-and-paste the quotes - almost certainly from
this web page - without bothering to actually check what the paper says.
Your creationist masters tell you to think, and you blindly believe them.
The truth is that this paper fully supports evolution. The figure 3 on page 5 is very much evolution. Figure 4 on page 9 is the same as in one of the articles I linked to (with colour added).
Once again the science paper you think supports you, actually supports me.
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
This will be a copy-and-paste from
here.
This guy cites Michael Denton, a biologist and ID proponent. Denton's position took quite a shift in the nineties. From
here:
Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates) and directly contradicts his previous misstatements presented by Camp above:
"In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc., can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined. There is not the slightest indication of any discontinuity." (Denton 1998, p. 277)
Of course, creationists always quote Denton's older books. Denton fundamental misunderstands evolution in the quote above, seeing it as a linear progression from earth worms to people. The fact is that modern earth worms, just like people, are the culminationof 4 billion years of evolution.
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.
Which makes my point about the pattern of differences between species highly relevant. Your own posts have ended up supporting my position, and exposing fundamental flaws in your own ability to comprehend the science.
And of course, you still have not explained that pattern.
Ah, so here it is. You know you have lost, and you need an exit strategy.
Obviously you cannot admit you are wrong. Heaven forbid! But just as obviously you have no clue about what we are talking. Not a nice situation for you to be in, and to be honest, I am surprised you have not bailed earlier.