Then we would have to ask what you are looking for in a transitional fossil, or would you deny that any fossil is transitional no matter what it looks like?
1 Like
Following up on my last post, what would you accept as evidence in the fossil record? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional?
I respectfully disagree this is required to make a reasonable assessment.
If you canât show how prp8 interacted with other proteins when it first emerged then you donât have evidence for the conclusions you are drawing.
2 Likes
We do not have evidence that is simpler then what we find in yeast. Do you have evidence of this?
Then your conclusions are based on negative evidence, which is a fatal flaw.
1 Like
Negative evidence?
Yes, as opposed to positive evidence. You are guilty of using the burden of proof fallacy. You have claimed that the organisms in which prp8 first emerged were similar to yeast, and you do so without any positive evidence to back it. You claim that this is a solid argument because no one can disprove it. That is a burden of proof fallacy.
1 Like
Do you have evidence to the contrary? You are certainly welcome to question my assumptions but to claim I cannot make an assessment of the evidence base on your speculative fantasy is silly.
The burden of proof is on you to show that we can splice out nuclear introns with a simpler mechanism then we find in yeast.
Burden of proof fallacy.
False. You are claiming that there is no simpler mechanism. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you.
3 Likes
T this is were you are confused. The original claim is that RMNS or neutral mutations can account for the origin of prp8. I am showing problems with this assertion based on known evidence. You are defending the claim with speculation.
Those are the proposed mechanisms. We donât know the precise mutation by mutation origin of every protein, just as we donât for prp8. We donât know how prp8 emerged, but RMNS is being used as the base hypothesis for researching this origin.
You, however, have stated that RMNS can not produce prp8. This is based on other claims, such as prp8 having to work with several other proteins the moment it emerges. You have not given any evidence for any of these claims, but claim it should be treated as true unless there is evidence presented otherwise. That is a burden of proof fallacy.
1 Like
If I did that I apologize. Let me modify my claim that RMNS would have a very difficult time producing prp8 based on the evidence we can observe.
Letâs agree if I set myself up to have to prove a negative I am in error. Science is always tentative.
This is failed argument. A 6 ball lottery which is designed for people to win is not analogous to RMNS producing a protein. A 100 ball lottery gets closer to estimating the problem for RMNS.
Yes, I am making claims without evidence. Committing Texas Sharp Shooter fallacies and making the silly observation that protein function depends on sequence integrity. Any DNA sequence will build a human because function is so prevalent in sequence space. Silly me 
Remove the sarcasm and the claim âany DNA sequence will build a human,â, and for what might be the first time in our long on-line relationship, you have said something with which I would agree.
(Specifying that the outcome must involve building a human is a great example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, BTW.)
Thats right. How about a general outcome like a mammal?
What do you base this on?
This shows that you still donât understand how the Sharpshooter fallacy is being used. You seem to think that evolution must produce humans, when it doesnât.
1 Like