Maybe learn more about the process of gene loss? It seems you don’t know very much about this subject. There are qualified individuals here who could help you.
What false claims? Prove it. Why are the professionals here not telling me I’m making false claims?
As I have pointed out previously, this is your way of saying “I have no way to address this clear contradiction of my claims, so I will refuse to discuss this further”.
Meanwhile, I notice that you still don’t even want to talk about your own argument, despite me providing you with an easy opportunity for you to demonstrate that it is true. Here it is again.
I have a mind.
[something happens here]
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. Unless you can do that, your “mind as a mechanism” claim is dead in the water.
first we are talking about genetic similarity and not about genetic content. and even so how many genes can be found in human but not fugu and vice versa? not so much i think.
i dont think so. we can use the same tree for 2 different scenarios, as you can see:
You don’t seem to understand that just because you have erased the nodes in the pictured phylogenetic tree, the tree structure is still present in the data from which that tree is inferred. You can’t erase the data.
Why would a designer independently create organisms so you end up with a nesting hierarchy?
Why create an organism A, and then derive two new organisms B and C from it, in such a way that they’re equally genetically dissimilar to A, but more similar to each other, and why create their genetic differences in such a way that they look like they occurred by mutation? It simply doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t make any sense. What data are the line-lengths based on if not the time since their inferred common ancestors? What makes the hagfish line be so much longer than, say, the placental mammal line?
Did God create lampreys hundreds of millions of years before he created mice?
Please humor me. Explain how you would infer the length of the ray-finned fish “line”, and what it tells you? What data would you use, and how would you use it to get the length of that line?
Well, the mechanism must either be space aliens or a miracle occurs here. The question is why is this so hard for the ID advocates to spit it out, why this “mind” euphemism? Is this some sort of veneer to obfuscate the transparent supernatural premise? “We’re just doing pure science; theology, what’s theology?” When people cannot just speak the language, usually I start looking for some larger agenda at play.
Yeah that makes zero sense Bill. Matter is not postulated to explain why or how space-time curves.
The curvature of space-time is a model that explains, for example, the behavior of light in the presence of matter. Or why two objects with mass experiences a mutual force of attraction.
What you wrote doesn’t actually reflect anything going on in the field of physics.
The study of quantum gravity is trying to explain and model why matter is curving space time if you like I will provide a paper that shows this model.
My point is a theory is viable without number 2 explained. You do need a mechanism powerful enough to explain what you are observing. A mind solves the information and other arrangement observations we see in biology. The properties of matter at this point do not.
We do however have a model of how matter curves space time which is general relativity. This model contains (matter) and its measured effect (curvature) on space-time.
You don’t have a theory Bill. You have your own ad hoc story completely unsupported by any scientific evidence and which has doesn’t explain a single thing. All you keep offering is your mind magic POOF! hypothesis which you can’t even think of a way to test.
This is right up there with the sound of one hand clapping. Neither your mind or my mind does anything on this planet until we act on it. Why so coy about special creation?
I realize that Bill has a seemingly a fixed number of talking points and thus conversations with him tend to return to the same subjects over and over again. Nevertheless, I can’t help but point out that the current conversation has nothing to do with the actual subject of this thread.
