And if you eliminate the DNA, you get none of those. So you still cannot use “minds” as an explanation for the origin of DNA, because the evidence shows that minds only exist after DNA does.
But as you have been told repeatedly, this is just using a mind to create information. This is not your original claim, which was the creation of a de novo protein. You keep doing this bait and switch.
No, because mind does not produce material objects. Reproduction produces material objects; babies. Mind does not produce physical objects such as de novo proteins.
Then stop saying it is the mechanism which explains de novo proteins, and stop doing this bait and switch between “mind produces physical objects” and “mind only produces information”.
In your totally unsubstantiated opinion. You never do any science. Why?
who said anything about YEC position? secondly: even if we will go by the YEC position remember that its possible that the bible only talks about modern time period. its possible that there were other natural worlds before what the bible describe.
if so its not impossible to push back tetrapod evolution even more.
The fossils that should precede Chimerarachne in the fossil record, the precursor and stem arachnids, do actually precede Chimerarachne. Nor are any fossils that look like descendants of Chimerarachne found earlier than Chimerarachne. So Chimerarachne is not out-of-order w.r.t. any other fossils, and this is in no way any “13452” situation as you claimed - the fossils are found in an appropriate order, just with a large gap. The only way in which this fossil could possibly be seen as being out-of-place is if you had some evidence that the lineage that led to Chimerarachne had gone extinct sometime during that 170my gap - but of course you haven’t and couldn’t have any such evidence. While you could describe this as “1234…5” or even “12…3” or “12349”, there is absolutely nothing about Chimerarachne to justify your characterisation of it’s place in the fossil record as “13452”.
Your three supposed examples of your claimed many out of place fossils have proven, on inspection, to be (i) a ghost lineage, (ii) a fossil of unknown age, and (iii) a trace fossil of disputed origin.
Since instead of admitting this you’ve resorted to deliberately and blatantly quote-mining and ignoring my responses to try to avoid responsibility for your false claims, I’m not wasting any more time on this. I’ll simply point out that while I have learnt a lot about fossil arachnids and tetrapod research, you’re just irresponsibly spouting spurious claims. Since you haven’t provided any source that might have given you a false impression about Scansoriopteryx, the responsibility for the ridiculous claim that a fossil of unknown age is the wrong age lies entirely with you.
Bovine faeces. That article is about the reliability of molecular clock dating. It says nothing at all about the relationship between fossils and phylogeny. Strike 4.
Also, it seems to me the molecular clock estimates in general clearly correlate with the fossil dates, even where they don’t match all that well. Generally speaking, when fossils say species A is older than species B, that fact is corroborated by the molecular clock. The correlation is pretty clear even at a glance. Yes, molecular clock estimates are generally much more uncertain compared to fossil dates, but they still obviously correlate.
Yes, it’s a scaling problem rather than an ordering one.
I’m now wondering if molecular clocks suffer from the same problem that rates of anatomical change do - that the average rate over aeons is slower than the measurable rate because of variation around a mean and selection against over-rapid change.
This is not the ID response or argument. This is a typical straw-man used against ID.
The God of the gaps positioning positioning of ID is similar to the assigning religious motivation as a positioning of ID. To some extent both are true the question is are these issues enough to dismiss the argument?
I personally believe dismissing the argument is a mistake for science as we need the hypothesis to compare to other hypothesis. Common descent will always win easily over the null (random) hypothesis as it bring some level of order to the data. The papers that compare common descent to the null are ridiculous as the probability of like sequences forming randomly is vanishingly small.
Design or mind as a mechanistic explanation allows for a much more rigorous challenge. If you look at the different papers cited here the patterns are certainly better explained by common descent then selected random genetic change alone. The problem is this comparison adds no rigor to the discussion. Common descent will always win without any thought.
The issue that everyone agrees on is there is noise in the data. In the case of the WNT gene family comparison between invertebrates there is significant noise in the data. The possibility of the pattern being the product of design (mind) adds rigor to the discussion.
Science should always be looking for more specific solutions and when one is found the design hypothesis or null (random) hypothesis maybe temporary discarded.
There is no question that the design (mind) argument has religious or ideological implications. Is that a reason on its own to dismiss it as a discussion vehicle?
I agree there are inconsistencies to what I am saying and appreciate you surfacing them. The issue is there is not one ID argument there are several. Defeating a single argument does not defeat all of them. ID can be a gaps argument but it can also be a positive argument depending on who and how it is delivered.
It can also be an asset to science on the other hand a way to push theology. Do we just through the baby out with the bath water?
At which point the question becomes: Why do believers in ID refuse to accept when all their arguments have been defeated? You are doing a great job of answering that, inadvertent though that may be.