I have to say that your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent.
No, you’re not just reporting on what needs to change, you’re spamming the thread in a prototypical example of the Gish-gallop.
Yes I’m quite certain that your creationist audiences who deign to seek out Salvador Cordova to tell them reassuring but science-sounding fables with lots of colored arrows, abbreviations, and symbol-filled tables, are all deeply impressed with your characterizations.
Well first of all one has to wonder why such a thing like a “fishapod” with clearly derived and morphologically intermediate characteristics should even exist in the first place.
When you do this pointing out, do you also explain that nobody actually think such cases are ever based on single fossils, but rather inferred from highly statistically significant patterns in much larger collections of data based on dusins if not hundreds of both living and fossil species? Let’s not kid ourselves here, of course you don’t.
No, they don’t so much “explain” the “mechanistic feasiblities” of such transitions. But the feasiblity is nevertheless implied by a consistent nested hierarchy. Additional and more detailed reasons to think such transitions are feasible is found in our understanding of the molecular and population-dynamical mechanisms of evolutionary change. The physical and chemical causes of, and known types of mutation, subject to natural selection and genetic drift.
Surely that must be impossible to evolve. Gee I just can’t figure out how, and you used the “fine-tuning” term. Therefore God!
A sentence that doesn’t parse meaningfully into english. “Nested hierarchical reasoning” (whatever that means) isn’t postulated as explanations for the evolution of Zinc Finger arrays. The evolutionary history, as in the genealogical lines of descent from common ancestors, is mapped out and displayed in a phylogenetic tree. This tree in turn implies the sorts of changes that would occur on individual branches of the tree to give rise to the differences that distinguish one molecule from another.
The explanation then becomes the types of mutations that cause these differences. Substitutions, insertions, deletions, duplications, or what have you.
I’m sure they’re impressed both by your crayon skills and your ability to mindlessly declare with great conviction what you think can or can’t possibly function, in the church basement.
This statement is even less sensible than the previous. What in the world does it mean to say that “the zing finger array matches the DNA”? And who has ever posited that “hierarchical diagrams” are explanations for that incoherent gibberish?
What do you respond when your church audience asks you this?
Non-sequitur specifically are you referring to? Who is it that actually makes this incoherent straw-man of an argument you’re trying to knock down. Can you quote them?
It is not a non-sequitur to argue something. An argument may commit a non-sequitur fallacy, but we’d have to see this supposed argument first before we can make such a judgement call.
And to be sure, it isn’t actually a non-sequitur to argue that a nested hierarchy implies the feasibility of such evolutionary divergences, because manifest nesting hierarchical structure in the data(which you just agreed there really is) is exactly what you would expect to have if such evolutionary divergences actually occurred. And if they actually occurred, they are of course strongly implied to be feasible.
He said, quite sure of himself. He never explained why.
