My understanding was that Carter was a marine biologist, not a virologist. Has anything he has “written … about this” been of sufficient rigor as to make it into mainstream virology journals? In what lab has he done primary research on cross-species infections?
“Has written about”, and even " has written a whole lot about" offers no real indication that the author actually knows what they’re writing about.
Addendum:
Why exactly should we be taking Carter’s word for it?
Observations and analysis of events such as SN1987a, and gravitational wave detections are not repeatable. The incidence of COVID variants is not repeatable. In your world, are astronomy and epidemiology not science?
Besides, creationists do not much like observational science either. They reject using observational and experimentally determined values, instead pulling convenient numbers out of thin air to accommodate fictions such as accelerated tectonic plate movement, nuclear processes, lithification and mineral formation, and erosion, while completely ignoring fundamental principles at the core of science such as heat generated by these processes.
A very important quibble:
No one expects that one-off events should be repeatable, but that is not the requirement.
The experiment to test a given hypothesis needs to be repeatable, not the unique data.
This is a problem because then it seems different creationist authors might have conflicting views on what exactly GE predicts, and it means you could in principle retreat from potential falsifications of GE in species where one creationist author predicts GE should occur, to that of the other creationist author, and still claim GE remains unfalsified.
Which conception of GE will you be arguing for in your debate? The one that says organismal simplicity affects GE, or the one that says it is irrelevant?
Claiming that swine flu isn’t harmful to pigs and avian flu doesn’t kill birds is one of the dumbest GE claims I’ve seen.
It’s almost as bad as the equation that implied Noah’s wife is still alive.
As a (now retired) Petroleum Geologist I have to take issue with this. In hydrocarbon exploration we use data gathered today to build models about the geological past, from which we predict where we have the best chance of finding oil or gas when we drill for it. Drilling is the test, and I can assure you that the success rates are very significantly higher than if we were to drill at random.
So yes, we can test our interpretations of the past, as I have done so many times myself. Processes form the past leave traces in the here and now that we can use to scientifically work out what happened. Historical/Operational Science is a made-up distinction.
NO.
Your’re absolutely wrong.
Everybody who has criticised GE in this thread has read many, many creationist technical articles.
So your son is working in the Masel Lab then? That’s fascinating!
I’m definitely going to check out this paper and see how it may be relevant and potentially helpful in this discussion.
My alternative is inspired by Grasse’s concept of « mother form » organisms, that is primitive, non-specialized ancestral groups that holds the “blueprint” for major biological lineages. These « mother forms » are characterized by high morphological plasticity and act as the creative origin from which a vast array of specialized species eventually radiates. IOW, “mother forms” are stable blueprints that carry the essential information needed to deploy new, complex structures when the right internal or external conditions are met. Most importantly, these « mother forms » would somehow be protected from GE, much like stem cells, which are also less prone to mutations.
You literally admitted it by writing:
IOW, you haven’t looked up a speck of the relevant evidence. You just keep regurgitating Carter’s falsehoods (particularly gross misrepresentations of the relevant data) that were debunked in your last visit here. BTW, Carter isn’t educated on the topic. I know that because I am.
However, this may be your falsehood:
Again, you’ve been asked by several people to name this original host. You can’t, because it’s painfully obvious that you (or Carter or Sanford) simply fabricated this.
Also, what’s the point of describing claims as repeatable? It makes no sense.
A very obvious genetic test of the theory (no longer a mere hypothesis) of common descent is where a new gene sequence will appear in the purely mathematical analyses of sequence data that produce nested hierarchies. That’s tested many times a day.
You’d think that creationists would be eager to test their hypothesis, if they had any faith (in both the secular and religous senses) in it.
It is a made-up distinction.
Both the terminology and the distinction were made up by creationists Charles Thaxton and Norman Geisler in the 1980s.
This has been documented at length in multiple threads on this forum, including ones in which you took part in. Threads in which your claims were repeatedly exposed as false.
@UncensoredPilgrims It gets better! The same methods used to test Common Descent (CD) using phylogenetic data can also be used to test other hypotheses, like Separate Origins. And that’s exactly what this paper does!
Now you might reasonably object to the specification of Separate Ancestry used in this test, and that is OK. The point is that mainstream science has established methods for testing this sort of hypothesis. Anyone with the knowhow could be using the same methods to test all manner of alternative hypotheses, looking for data that will disprove CD. It has been ten years since that paper was published, and no critic of evolution has taken up the challenge. Not. One.
It’s almost like Creation scientists are afraid of putting their ideas to a real test.