@PDPrice I can send you a textbook if you so desire.
I don’t think PDPrice knows what an eyewitness account is. He seems to think a book describing someone seeing an event counts as first-hand eyewitness testimony. If that were true then there are eyewitness accounts of Sherlock Holmes being a real 19th century detective because plenty of characters in the Conan-Doyle books see him. 
4 Likes
Look at the positioning of these factors in relation to the E,P, and A locations.
@PDPrice I can send you a textbook if you so desire.
Phylogenetic methods are circular reasoning and don’t account for the problems posed at the molecular level at this thread. I have Felsenstein’s phylogeny book and it doesn’t even touch the sort of problems described here.
It’s is noteworthy the evolutionary biologists here aren’t saying much, that’s because the mechanistic arguments are the real problem.
The data I put forward are like the St. Loius Cardinals in the 2019 NLDS game 5 in the first inning, and the evolutionary claims are like the Atlanta Braves in the same inning getting blown out of the ball park 10 to nothing. 
1 Like
They’re the same? Bacterial translation initiation factor IF-3, and it’s eukaryotic counterpart eIF1, associates in the “E” locations in both bacterial and eukaryotic subunits 30S and 40S.
I think you’re letting yourself confuse by the fact that they are named differently. The bacterial IF-3 factor functions analogously to the eukaryotic eIF1 factor, and IF-3 binds the corresponding(homologous to the eIF1 binding spot on eukaryotic 40s subunit) position on the bacterial 30S ribosomal subunit.
There is no reversal.
1 Like
No, they aren’t.
I don’t see any such claim. That looks like a complete fabrication. Why?
They are cartoons?
2 Likes
Lol no they aren’t.
Didn’t y’all just get swept?
He’s a cardinals fan and I’m a Braves fan and they just beat us so he’s giving me a hard time.
OK, then. If my example is too difficult because I include only two possible synapomorphies per “species”, then demonstrate using the very example you suggested. Show how a nested hierarchy could be produced from two models of Honda and two models from Ford using the parts and components of each car and treating them as possible synapomorphies.
You say this is easy. OK. Put your money where your mouth is and show us how easy this is.
You seem not to have understood the exercise. I did not ask for a list of four things. I asked for them to be placed into a nested hierarchy. For instance:
- Tiger
- Lion
- Poodle
- Trout.
All four are vertebrates.
1-3 are vertebrates and mammals.
1 and 2 are vertebrate, mammals and cats.
Like that.
When I try to do that with the four cars I listed, I can’t. I try to group the sedans together, but then they will not fit into the category Honda or Ford. But maybe I’m just overlooking a way it can be done. Can you show me what that might be?
1 Like
It is alway amusing to watch how ignorant many of the most devout believers are regarding the scholarship of their faith.
This video shows that even as biased an apologist as William Lane Craig admits that there is no such thing as a single solitary word written by someone claiming to be an eyewitness to a single moment of Jesus’s life that has been passed down to us. Again, this is William Lane Craig, and not some atheist skeptic:
3 Likes
So you’re saying that if I went to all the trouble of creating a complex nested hierarchy of automobiles across all manufacturers for all time, that would change your mind about evolution?
Now who is dancing around?
How did they get the account there in the first place, then?
Peter isn’t specifically referring to the Resurrection, so your proof quote doesn’t work.
This is called being obtuse. If not the Resurrection, what could Peter possibly be talking about when he says he was an eyewitness? Where do you think Peter got the idea that Christ was raised? Why do you think Peter went to his death proclaiming the Gospel?
There would still be all the other thousands of pieces of evidence in support of evolution to deal with. But, sure, if you can apply the standard techniques used to determine biological phylogenetic trees to produce the same kind of trees using cars, then I will admit that the nested hierarchy can no longer be used as an argument in favour of evolution.
OK, then? Over to you. Produce those trees.
2 Likes
Paulogia is awesome.
If you could really show that they fall into an objective nested hierarchy, yeah that would certainly make me sit up and reevaluate a lot of things.