Now you are committing the any function will do fallacy.
This protein needs to bind with many other proteins as such its sequence is restricted and it’s ultimate job of splicing introns is limited.
There are two sequences being compared. This is a normal scientific inquiry. You can argue what the comparison tells but comparing sequences of the same protein in different animals is fair game and valid empirical data.
There is no such thing.
You need to show this was true in the organism where the protein first appeared. Where is this evidence?
I know this to be true as we have varying splice requirements depending on the organisms and the protein first appeared in yeast. We also know the design requirements changed between yeast and vertebrates as the yeast spliceosome have less components. Prp8 still had lots of other proteins to interface with in yeast.
Amazing diagram! I had not seen that before. What a great example of how “irreducibly complex” backwards reasoning can so easily lead IDers astray.
One thing I learned from Behe’s testimony is IC is an argument targeted at cellular function.
Each of these creatures your show is fully complete in its own right. Each had a complete and fully functional system of hearing designed by God that allowed it survive and thrive in its respective habitat. They did not need mammalian hearing to truly become complete, nor was the mammalian ear some kind of “goal of ascendancy” that you make it out to be.
Question: Your picture has selected a mere eight organisms spanning millions of years according to your paradigm. I wonder, did you mean to leave out the many missing pictures showing the stages of growth of the bones in the middle ear? Maybe you have the pictures, but just did not have room to include them?
And you believed him? Why? There is no reason IC should apply any less to the anatomical level than at the cellular level. If you understood the concept, you would realize that.
Follow-up question. Is this what you people mean when you say “There is abundant proof for evolution in the fossil record”? Because frankly there is nothing here.
[edit: Far from helping, it actually militates against your paradigm.]
I suggest you read thru the thread and understand what that diagram was intended to illustrate, rather than making a fool of yourself.
Irony. I think you have just described the problem with your entire paradigm. It’s all about what you
“intended to illustrate”.
I do not understand this objection. What does it mean? I presume you refer to developmental stages in a modern mammal fetus. What would those contribute to the discussion?
(1) Who claimed that they were not “complete”?
(2) What exactly does it mean for a creature to be “fully complete”?
(3) Are you somehow claiming that the Theory of Evolution expects some creatures to be “incomplete creatures”?
I would agree with that. But have you ever heard anyone claim that God designed some organisms to be incomplete with non-fully functional systems that did not allow them to survive and thrive in their respective habitat? This is all sounding like the strangest of red herrings.
Who is claiming that there is some sort of “goal of ascendancy”? That sure sounds like the medieval philosophy called the Great Chain of Being, not evolutionary biology!
So what? I have yet to see a diagram which doesn’t limit what it depicts to some finite number of things.
(1) It sure sounds like you totally misunderstood the diagram.
(2) What is it that you are trying to say?
I don’t how many times various people on these threads have explained that evolutionary biology does not deal in proofs! That is mathematics. Mathematics deals in proofs. Other fields of science deal in overwhelming evidence and falsification testing.
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence of evolutionary processes in the fossil record. If you believe that paleontologists and taxonomists and many other kinds of scientists are wrong about this, how about explaining where they all went wrong? What do you understand that they do not?
(Dare I observe and mention that your arguments are becoming increasingly bizarre? I have no problems with someone explaining why they do not happen to personally affirm Universal Common Descent—but I don’t think you have put much effort into understanding the evidence for UCD.)
I think I may understand what he’s complaining about. He’s demanding acompletely continuous series of intermediate fossils. Each new intermediate only creates a new gap. It’s Zeno’s paradox translated into the paleontological record.
Yep. Zeno’s paradox meets the Great Chain of Being! Discover a new fossil and create two new gaps.
I just did, and as usual, you will not acknowledge the patent failings of your paradigm. Your claims are beyond the evidence. We have given you 150 years to pull this thing together into a convincing argument and you have failed. How much longer should intelligent people give you to demonstrate your ideas?
When I read posts like these, the person I most feel sorry for is @swamidass. He’s working very hard to reconcile Christianity with science, but then someone like @noUCA comes along and shows how much resistance there is to this idea.
There is abundant resistance to this idea and that will not cease. You have fooled a lot of people with your cleverly-devised fable, but there exists a plethora of common, everyday intelligent people who still believe in God and in the simple, original paradigm of creation written in the first book of the Bible.
Yours is a replacement theory and will continue to be exposed for what it is. Ultimately, of course, it will fail because it is complete fiction. Truth will always prevail.
As for Swamidass? He will be just fine. No sorry feelings here for him.
By the way, where are the rest of those pictures I asked for?
Which pictures? The ones of the “incomplete” organisms that your woefully inept understanding of evolution makes you believe must have existed?
Modern yeast are well removed from the first organisms that had prp8. You need to show how prp8 acted in the first population where it emerged.