Side Comments on Nelson's Signal + Noise

Are you offering a way to formally falsify common descent?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to get that from my comment.

In this case I believe noise is data that conflicts with ancestry and what type of data reproduction produces.

If the design hypothesis is right the noise may not be random at all but very intentional functional information. A de novo gene is an example.

I thought you denied that you had offered any such falsification criteria.

Was it just my use of the word “formal” that you objected to?

You think a lot of things that are wrong.

1 Like

You can see the train coming a mile away:

“We can’t falsify UCD so it isn’t scientific and we should not teach it in schools!”

…wait for it. :slightly_smiling_face:

Nothing wrong with rhetoric. It’s just another word for “effective communication.” It’s somethign we’re trying to encourage here.

1 Like

rhet·o·ric.

[ˈredərik]

NOUN
.
•language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

1 Like

Two major transitions come to mind. The prokaryotic eukaryotic transition where we first observe
-spliceosome
-cell nucleus
-nuclear pore complex
-chromosome structure
etc
All these together require lots of novel functional information.

Multicellular life
-building body plans
-the ubiquitin system
-cellular adhesion and communication
etc
Again, lots of new FI required here.

There clear is evidence of multiple origins. The eukaryotic cell is an example. The problem the UCD paradigm presents is that it is a working hypothesis that steers conclusions.

So you accept common ancestry between all eukaryotes, from protists to trees to humans?

This is true but it is a red herring. It doesn’t address Paul’s argument. It attempt to side-step his argument. What I would like to see is for someone to address the actual argument he makes.

You’ve had that explained to you at least a dozen times by multiple people on multiple science discussion boards. If you still don’t understand it’s because you don’t want to understand.

Why don’t you succinctly summarize for us the actual argument you say Paul is making. From the comments so far to most here it looks like a fog bank.

I think stories have been told. As of yet no model has been produced.

That has already been done in other threads, but you ignore it.

Like I said, you don’t understand because you don’t want to understand. All the scientific evidence in the world won’t change your refusal to learn.

You’re a scientist. Where is the model? Where’s the experiment?

It forces you to test each case as Josh is suggesting.

Where did I say that? None of this has anything to do with the common descent of man. It is a red herring.