You’re predictably missing the “nested” aspect of it.
2 Likes
Gee I don’t know for all proteins, but that DNA polymerase in this video seems to want to do its job in only one direction, whether moving on the leading strand or processing Okazaki fragments on the lagging strand:
Do you have problem with the preference of DNA Polymerase favoring only one direction, like 5’ to 3’?
Feel free to go ahead and answer the questions I asked that nobody else bothered to answer.
But we have no accounts from any eyewitness.
The evidence from incidental coherence says otherwise.
Nothing about “incidental coherence” produces an eyewitness account.
It seems more than hypocritical that you reject similar reasoning in the form of massive consilience in biology while pathologically avoiding the available evidence and falsely claiming that creationists are interpreting the same evidence as scientists are.
2 Likes
Yes to the first, but incomplete on the second, because it considers differences, which are always missing in creationist misrepresentations of the sequence evidence.
Not at all.
It strongly evidences that they were eyewitness accounts, because the only other possible explanation is that these forgeries got intensely lucky to produce this coherence by chance (highly unlikely) or else it is a very elaborate and highly subtle conspiracy to create the false appearance of genuine independent accounts (also highly unlikely).
Go back to where I was discussing this with @Rumraket and see where my questions got left unanswered. Feel free to answer if you can.
It is related to the field of cladistics, sure. But no, it’s not “arranging things by like characteristics”. I recommend you spend some time trying to understand how modern phylogenetic methods of tree inference actually work because that one is a misconception. Even one I’ve had myself.
Nothing in the Gospels indicates that any of the authors witnessed the Resurrection.
Who’s claiming anything was forged?
I did and am in agreement with Rum. Sorry if you don’t like my answers. They don’t work for the creationist ruse of vague “similarity,” do they?
2 Likes
To be clear here, I went and did something else. But there’s a limit to how much I can be bothered to explain these things to you, and we’re getting close to the limitation of my willingness to spoonfeed you the information.
I bothered to try to learn something about phylogenetic algorithms in my own spare time, because I wanted to understand the kind of reasoning and the evidence biologists use to argue for common descent. All initially spurred by reading and trying to really understand two specific parts of Douglas Theobald’s talk.origins article 29+ Evidences for macroevolution. In particular, I wanted to understand the two sections titled:
Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species
and
Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies
3 Likes
Incidental coherence does. The gospel writers record this as their eyewitness testimony. Peter’s gospel was written down by Mark.
Who’s claiming anything was forged?
So, you’re accepting the authorship of the Gospels by either eyewitnesses (Matthew & John) or those acting as their scribes (Mark & Luke)?
Peter said in 2 Peter:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
No, they don’t.
I don’t know who wrote them. I merely know that none of them contain eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection.
This isn’t that complicated, Paul.
Peter isn’t specifically referring to the Resurrection, so your proof quote doesn’t work.
The your question about uni vs. bidirectional movement of proteins misses the point about this diagram showing the positioning of helicases for a certain polarity of DNA:
The problem is the positioning of helicases on 3’-5’ is associated with the recruitment of the Origin of Replication Complex in Eukaryotes and Arahaea:
It’s a different set of proteins and complexes for bacteria that involved DnaI, which positions the helicase on the opposite polarity 5’-3’.
The issue is not as trivial as your insinuation about proteins moving in one direction or another. Hope this helps in your conception of the problem actually posed rather than the way you misconstrued it.
So the problem then is the trapping in a fitness peak and Natural Selection (NS) preventing the evolution of one architecture from another.
1 Like
I don’t know why you would say that. Peter’s gospel was written down by Mark and also possibly by Luke. John was an eyewitness to the Resurrection, and we have his Gospel. Same with Matthew. And I just showed you in 2 Peter where he claimed to be an eyewitness.
Because none of them contain anything purporting to be an eyewitness account. Your dancing around this simple fact is amusing.
We don’t know. We do know that the Gospel of John does not even suggest that the author was a witness.
Why is John 19:35 written in the third person?
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
He didn’t claim to be an eyewitness to the Resurrection.
You realize you’re the last guy at PS who should be complaining about not answering questions. 
Pretty pictures Sal. Lots of bright colors.
When will you be writing up your falsification of natural selection and submitting if for publication? BIO-Complexity is always looking for new Creationist woo, I mean science.
1 Like
None of those are eyewitness accounts.
See Price, that’s exactly why people get so ticked off at Creationists like you. No one here said anything about “evidence against God.” NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON. Yet you so desperately need to be the martyr having your religion attacked you make up these 100% false accusation.
You’ve also accused numerous people here of intellectual dishonesty. How intellectually dishonest is it of you to continually make these egregiously false claims?
4 Likes