Stairway to Understanding Hypothesis vs. Common Descent, my presentation to science students and church groups

Are these medical journals? Yes, I guess so. I am looking for published results drawing the same conclusions as Schnaffner and the other author on this forum.

Where? Again these are empty assertions. I’ve actually already tried some of your assertions, like your claim that “mind” is a “mechanism” which produces de novo proteins. Here’s a test.

  1. I have a mind.
  2. [something happens here]
  3. A de novo protein appears.

As you can see, something is missing, namely the mechanism. Please describe part two in detail. Please describe how I can use my mind to bring a de novo protein into being.

Prove it.

But you don’t provide any evidence of this. If your claims are true, why are you not having them published in peer reviewed literature? Your claim requires that the overwhelming number of professional scientists on the planet are in the wrong. That’s something which requires a great deal of evidence.

This proves exactly the point I made previously.

This is completely irrational, because you’ve had so many people with an advanced understanding of cellular biology that you don’t understand it. I’ve seen them correcting you repeatedly. They have pointed out again and again that you don’t understand the subject, and often demonstrate ignorance of the articles you cite.

As usual, you throw out a link to an article without explaining its relevance, or even explaining what you think the article is about. What conclusion do you draw from this, and is your conclusion actually described in the article? Do professionals draw the same conclusion from this article?

1 Like

They are peer reviewed science journals. The papers were written by the scientists who did the research, and it contains their results and analysis. They draw the same conclusions @glipsnort and @evograd have drawn.

4 Likes

I did not find that. The 2nd one has the starting assumption of common ancestry but I did not find in either where they believe that the analysis actually concludes their starting assumption. Can you quote something you are seeing?

It’s whim of course. Come on John, get with the program.

Bill has had that graphic and it’s implications explained to him close to twenty times now. At length. He does not understand why it doesn’t show what he thinks it does even after having had it explained to him over and over and over again.

First one of Bill’s creationist friends claimed ORFan genes somehow contradict phylogenetic evidence for common descent, which I tried to explain to him was the other way around here.

Later, the way in which the graphic still only makes sense on common descent was explained by John Harshman here: Common Design vs. Common Descent | The Skeptical Zone

Here’s Bill’s ingenious response: Common Design vs. Common Descent | The Skeptical Zone

colewd: None of us understands Sal’s flower including you. All of us can create a story that explains it but we are probably wrong. You are discounting outside space time explanations for the flower but including them in your explanation of common descent.

If you eventually realize the circular reasoning going on inside evolutionary biology I will be very impressed.

I added non detail because of the difficulty of an outside space time detailed explanation. That does not stop us from collecting evidence that points to an outside space time solution.

Mind you, Bill was present in the thread and read those responses. Ever since that time he’s brought up that graphic again and again and again. Even in that very thread. Despite it literally implying the opposite of what he’s insisting. It’s been over 2 years now, and he still doesn’t get it.

But, hey, we are discounting the “outside space time detailed expanation”.

6 Likes

Here you go:

3 Likes

Yeah, see this is exactly the point, isn’t it? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. His posts just sound like cargo cult science, throwing around sciencey sounding vocabulary (sometimes actual phrases which literally don’t make sense), in a manner which apes science without actually being science.

3 Likes

You are mistaken. Neither of those statements say that the research supports human/chimp ancestry.

That’s because it is such a well supported, widely held, and non-controversial conclusion that they don’t feel the need to explicitly state it.

4 Likes

Now we are getting somewhere. All that can really be shown is that since the human and chimp genome are similar, statistical results are similar in genetic research.

Therefore a title like this

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations

…is completely misleading. This is not science, but rather, bias.

Read it again:

They are looking at the differences. They are saying that these mechanisms are responsible for the differences between humans and chimps since they shared common ancestry.

2 Likes

“These observations match the predictions that flow naturally from evolutionary theory and common descent.”

From @evograd, this statement is completely unwarranted and unsupported by the research.

Then what should the pattern of substitution mutations look like if humans and chimpanzees do share a common ancestor, and how does it differ from what we see?

1 Like

I thought you might pull that one out. No, you read it again. It does not say what you think it is saying. You are coloring it with your bias.

That is not a helpful post. If you think the analysis is wrong, then show HOW it is wrong. Don’t simply say that it is wrong.

The authentic answer? We don’t know. And we can’t know.

Really? Holding your hand?

That is the a prior assumption.

And that is the finding. And for medical purposes, it is important. But says nothing about the research affirming the a prior assumption.

Don’t you dare pin this accusation on me! I did not say anywhere that the analysis is wrong.

The medical research is good research. Your mishandling of the data strongly throw into question your (and your friends here) any kind of authentic scientific investigation.