What was the point of his model?
Sure, but you seem to be saying “If it’s not in first person, it cannot represent eyewitness testimony.” You haven’t backed that up with anything.
It was the impression I got, at least 
You are still dodging my challenge here. You tried to deny that Peter ever claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection, and I proved you wrong outright. You should rejoice because that means the evidence is that much stronger.
Show me some indisputable eyewitness accounts that include no first-person pronouns.
I wrote absolutely nothing that would create such an impression. My point is that you avoid the evidence.
No, I am not. I do note that you just dodged my question about ethics.
You did nothing of the sort, Mr. Literal.
Let’s discuss the only evidence I’ve seen presented in any of your writings:
What data are graphed here? Specifically and in your own words, please.
I’m not going to spend any more time bandying about with somebody who refuses to maintain the clear topic of conversation and tries to obfuscate with obvious red herrings and rabbit trails. 
Of course you aren’t going to address data presented in a paper YOU authored!
The topic of conversation is your avoidance and misrepresentation of evidence, Biblical and scientific.
1 Like
Do you mean from Dawkins perspective?
Didn’t y’all just get swept?
I’m a Nationals fan, remember. The Cardinals did the job of dispensing with the Braves on the Nationals’ behalf.
Yes. What was the WEASEL program meant to demonstrate?
I was meant to demonstrate cumulative selection. Do you think it is proper model for cumulative selection?
There are enough relatively high quality vertebrate genomes at this point, that it would be pretty easy to to repeat the analysis with probably 4-5x the species (or more). I’m pretty bogged down with my own work at the moment, so it might be a while before I can take a look at this, but I’ll try to take a look at some point if nobody else wants to.
You brought that up out of the blue in an obvious bid to change the subject from what we had been discussing… I don’t know why I would be obligated to address it.
As usual, you avoid the direct question.
What was the design purpose behind the deletion of a letter in my name?
How many genes were lost in total, in all lineages?
What percentage of this is represented by the 73?
How does this compare with what would be expected by chance?
But you haven’t explained this particular pattern. Why was a set of 73 similar genes deleted (or deliberately excluded) twice in two different species?
Was it just chance that the designer didn’t include those 73 genes twice, or whim? Is there some functional reason? Are they perhaps just not needed in those two species so that’s why the designer didn’t include them?
Those chances would be different for different genes, in different environments, and at different time periods. For example, genes needed for eye development could be easily lost by species like the blind cavefish, but could not be easily lost by species who need their sight. Olfactory receptors are notorious for gene turnover. A lineage adapting to life on land could easily lose genes involved in gill production. As shown elsewhere, placental mammals easily lost genes for yolk production, something egg-laying species could not do.
The subject is your avoidance of evidence, what you and I have been discussing all along. Did you not claim that your writings would provide insight into evolution? As far as I can tell, the data are very relevant to understanding (or in your case, not understanding) fitness.
Didn’t you tell us to consult your writings? Wouldn’t that obligate you to address questions about them?
Why did you suggest that, Paul?