Then you’re not doing science and you have evidence for your case, as I said.
Here’s the God of the Gaps argument.
You can’t use the words like that.
Imagine God sitting on his throne in the year 75 million years ago.
10 million years later, the asteroid hits that wipes out all the dinosaurs.
Now imagine God sitting on his throne 55 million years ago.
Are there any populations of animals alive 55 million years ago, that come from populations from BEFORE the asteroid?
If you say NO… then we know you believe in special creation making new species without any connection to any other populations.
If you say YES, it doesn’t matter HOW they did it… it’s still common descent.
1 Like
Yes, that’s what you are doing. But you are not challenging with evidence. You are challenging with assertions and rhetorical questions.
Your challenge has no persuasive power.
3 Likes
9 posts were split to a new topic: Jordan points out a difference in method between ID supporters and biologists
This is an assertion Neil. Have you seen the data I presented?
So I see three possibilities:
- there are unknown evolutionary mechanisms that would account for highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells.
- the known evolutionary mechanisms do account for highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells, we just haven’t found out precisely how.
- something completely outside of evolution accounts for highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells.
@colewd, I’m not sure how to really distinguish between these 3 options, even given the premise that there are highly preserved proteins that are observed in eukaryotic cells that don’t exist in prokaryotic cells. Do you have suggestions? (Sorry if you’ve already given a specific answer, I tried to read all the posts but it got a bit cluttered)
LOL! Bill Cole “logic”:
All evidences for evolutionary theory don’t count because they’re assertions
All assertions for ID-Creationism count because they’re evidence.
I think your summary is quite good.
My only issue is to state accurately where we are. To have a real hypothesis for the origin of the eukaryotic cell we do need to find the mechanism that could account for such highly preserved and long amino acid sequences. Endosymbiosis is only a partial explanation.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful mediation.
The origin of multicellular life may also have a similar conundrum.
“evolution can’t explain everything therefore evolution can’t explain anything!”
Right on cue. 
1 Like
Where did I make this claim?
Spliceome
Common descent
Eukatyotic cell
Abiogenesis
Get real Bill. When hasn’t that been your primary argument?
You cannot show I made the claim because I did not. I believe that evolution is important science when the claims match the evidence.
That’s going to be tough since you “forget” every piece of scientific evidence for evolution you’ve been shown and come back the next day with the same science-free claims.
Everyone here knows your M.O. Bill. You’re not kidding anyone.
Are you really going to claim you never made an argument of the form “science can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore Design!” Good grief. 
Science cannot explain everything so it cannot anything is a canard that comes from you. You are distorting competing arguments. Why do you feel the need to do that?
I guess with Bill’s rampant “amnesia” he’s already forgotten the the crappy ID-Creationist argument he uses half a dozen times a day.
The problem with this is that you have never looked at the evidence and can’t tell whether it matches the claims. Remember crocodiles, ratites, and sparrows?
1 Like
This is an assertion. Explain how the evidence matched your claims.
Bill’s favorite excuse. Declare any scientific point he can’t address to be an “assertion”.
You need a new excuse Bill. That one’s past its “use by” date.
Did you read the papers on crocodiles and ratites? Those are me explaining how the evidence matched my claims.