to over come the problem the evidence of observed long preserved sequences bring to the hypothesis of natural selection and drift.
I don’t know what this sentence is supposed to convey. I know that you are referring to the fact that the prp8 protein sequence is relatively well conserved in (for example) vertebrates when you write the words “observed long preserved sequences”, but I don’t understand what the rest of that sentence is intended to communicate.
You are simply making burden shifts and defining how your opponent can meet his claim which is impossible. You are shutting down conversation with this tactic. If he set himself up to have to prove a negative simply point out his error. If you set him up to have to prove a negative you are just playing games.
I’m not shifting the burden of proof. I am keeping it where it is supposed to be, on the person making the claim. Here is the claim:
“one evidence is the fact that many proteins need at least several domains for their minimal function.”–scd
To support this claim, we need to see all of the functions this protein has performed over its entire history. If @scd can’t supply these functions, then the claim falls apart.
It’s a clear burden shift. He is making a claim based on observable evidence. You are requiring that he disprove all possible historical speculation. This is not even close to a scientific discussion which you should know.
Then no one can make claims about what it did in the past, such as requiring all modern sub-domains for selectable function. Since those claims can’t be made, further claims about the impossibility of its evolution also can’t be made.
I am not claiming it was different. That is a shift in the burden of proof.
Thank you Bill for once again sharing your unsupported and uninformed personal opinion with us. We’ll file it with the rest of your science-free beliefs.
You can not prove that a given protein required all of its current subdomains in order to have selectable function. This is the burden of proof that needs to be met.
As stated above, that’s just your personal opinion. When it comes to actual science, you lack the goods.
It’s based on the evidence we have for what it takes to have reliable self replication, power management and mobility. All evidence points to cells being irreducibly complex based on key operating components such as ATP synthase.
