John,
Here is a paper comparing MtDNA of American and Cuban Crocs. Will try to read in the next few days.
Really?
That still does you no good, since it’s two closely related species within a single genus. It offers no support for the claim that all crocodylians are the same kind.
There is no reason for evolutionary biologists to do so, unless they care about convincing the public. If all they care about is maintaining their echo chamber among themselves, they don’t need to justify anything. They can just keep on speculating and pumping out articles that nobody but evolutionary theorists will read. But if they take that path, they will continue to lose the battle of public opinion. It’s really their choice, whether they are content to remain a smug, self-reinforcing group which doesn’t care what the great scientifically unwashed masses think, or whether they want to truly persuade people. I couldn’t care less what they do. Evolutionary theory isn’t very important anyway. Just about every other branch of natural science is far more important, both for social and economic utility, and as a model of scientific rigor and clarity.
Not regarding the toaster, but regarding the rest, yes.
It’s not meant to persuade anyone. It’s meant to explain why you guys haven’t persuaded me. If you care about persuading me, you’ll provide the details you’ve avoided presenting since the time of Darwin; if you don’t care, then just go on the way you’re going, speculating, bluffing, faking, unjustifiably extrapolating, and overclaiming. I’m not stopping you.
I’m trying to figure out whether the face in the picture looks more like Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins. Or is it supposed to be Dobzhansky? It’s not Darwin; there’s no beard.
I agree with you and think narrowing the scope of the hypothesis to genus Crocodylus is warranted.
The genus Crocodylus alone comprises almost 50% (12 out of 27) of all extant crocodylian species and is unique for its global distribution in the tropics and recent diversification (Oaks, 2011). Yet, ambiguity remains regarding the phylogenetic
So hybridization is the only evidence you consider?
1 Like
Why would I cite a paper reviewing MtDNA sequence comparison if this was true? All the evidence is relevant IMO.
It’s Dinesh D’Souza. Even so, it’s actually a genuinely good video.
1 Like
And what about people like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, or @swamidass? Do they reject the “design argument” because they are dogmatic atheists?
Spoken like someone who isn’t at all someone who refuses to be convinced by evidence because of his dogmatic religious beliefs, nosiree, not at all.
1 Like
Because the sequences were used solely to explore hybridization between two species. What are you trying to say?
1 Like
My claim was not that anyone who rejects design arguments must be a dogmatic atheist. It was that the particular dogmatic atheists posting on this website will never, no matter what reason or evidence is presented, accept design arguments. (Or Christian faith, or the existence of God.) They are set in their thinking.
OK.
That still leaves open the question of why essentially every single member of the scientific community with the relevant expertise, regardless of their religious beliefs, reject the “design argument”, and the only exceptions are a small gaggle of dogmatic fundamentalist Christian extremists.
Any thoughts on that puzzle?
3 Likes
Funny how you switched from biologists to mere theory.
Evolutionary biology is incredibly important in the current pandemic, even to rational laypeople.
Another telling characteristic: none of that gaggle worked in evolutionary biology. If it’s a bunch of bunk, shouldn’t at least some of those who worked in the field (very few of whom progressed to faculty positions) have noticed?
What about those of us who reject IDcreationism more fundamentally–as pseudoscience because it consists of virtually nothing but rhetoric and ignoring/misrepresenting the relevant evidence?
For example, how can any of Meyer’s ID arguments about the RNA World hypothesis be convincing if they don’t acknowledge the stone-cold fact that the enzyme at the center of translation is a ribozyme, while Meyer explicitly misleads (whether by incompetence or dishonesty really doesn’t matter) his readers by calling it a protein?
6 Likes
Why should we care about persuading you, a pseudonymous commenter who is constantly bragging about credentials that aren’t available to check?
2 Likes
@Eddie seems to think that if some egghead nerd scientist published a molecule by molecule account of eye evolution in one of those technical journals that no one reads, all members of the general public who refuse to accept evolution because they think it says their religion is a lie will step to and suddenly accept scientific reality.
He has some funny ideas, does “Eddie”.
1 Like