What scientific investigation showed the omnipotent Deity required a template? Link to evidence please.
Then show your math, donât just claim it. That excuse making is the act of someone who knows they are busted.
1 Like
Hi Chris
Starting from now how do we make a prediction on random or stochastic neutral changes? We can look at the result but how do we predict where these mutations will land other than a stochastic distribution based on @glipsnort evidence.
A scientific model is predictive it is not simply a fitting of historic data.
I donât expect you to get it. So never mind to you.
But I do expect YOU to get it. Here is my math and I thank you for it
1 Like
What predictions do your Magic Mind POOF! model make?
We predict the distribution of changes in exactly the same way that any scientific field predicts stochastic changes.
A predicted distribution is a prediction. A prediction of historic data that you havenât seen yet is also a prediction. Thatâs why common descent is a scientific model. Common design isnât a scientific model because it canât do either.
2 Likes
So you admit you have no math and were faking it. Got it.
Thereâs no math in that article concerning special Creation. More faking it for the YLC. 
That doesnât mean anything, and it appears to be entirely made up.
This would require humans and chimps to start out with identical genomes. How does that work?
When we map human mutations in real time we see that transitions happen at a higher rate than transversions, and CpG mutations have the highest rate overall. These arenât assumptions, these are observations. It is also an observation that these rates match up with the differences between the human and chimp genomes. If this isnât what we would expect from common ancestry and known mechanisms that cause mutations, then please explain what we would expect.
1 Like
Creationism does not predict those findings. Your repeated assertions that it does donât constitute an argument. If your really think that creationism can make that prediction, lay out the argument. If you donât, just stop typing, because youâre wasting your time.
3 Likes
Have you not been following the discussion?
Creationism must predict these things. What are you talking about? It has no choice but to predict them. That is why I made the honest statement above about your research changing our views.
Who is âweâ? What creationists have offered a model that includes common descent of all mammals, for example?
WHY? Why is your Designer limited to âdesignsâ which look exactly like they came from known evolutionary processes?
1 Like
Why would God create these genomes so that there are more transitions than transversions, and a high rate of differences at CpGâs?
We donât need this and neither do you. All you have shown presently is the common genome of the human and great ape.
So you have no Creation model, no Creation math. Just lots of excuses and hand waving. Got it again.
Mind is a mechanistic explanation for complex sequences. Common design does have a model as Winston Ewert is developing it. The model is expanding on the problems that @stcordova introduced at TSZ.
You have stochastically modeled how mutations can be distributed but you have not shown how they can innovate. Given they live in almost infinite mathematical space there is very strong reason to doubt they can. The only possibility is almost all sequences are functional yet the empirical data is not cooperating with this idea as gpuccioâs data shows.
Thatâs your claim that you keep making. Now lay out the argument. What species had this common genome? How long ago? How many mutations have accumulated since. I think youâre avoiding laying out the argument because you donât have one.
We have compared the differences between the genomes, and those differences between genomes match the differences caused by observed natural processes. That is what we have shown. If you dispute this correlation, then please show us how we are wrong.
Are innovations due to changes in DNA sequence?