It only is if the claim is the common descent of all vertebrates.
Evasion of question noted. He didnāt ask WHAT Bill. He asked HOW.
2 Likes
Of course I am. Please, oh please, try to make sense and stop with the one-line replies that only create confusion. I canāt understand what point youāre trying to make here, and I doubt you do. And thereās another one-line reply that fails to explain anything:
Are you being obscure on purpose, or is that just the most youāre capable of?
2 Likes
So he sees everything as evidence against evolution?
2 Likes
How is this so?
Pretty much. At least thatās how all his web posts here and elsewhere come across.
2 Likes
Does this remind you of a certain ID proponent who loves self-replicating robots 
1 Like
And, @colewd, how does design account for the polymorphism of human MYH7 gene (beta-cardiac and slow-twitch myosin heavy chain)? Evolutionary theory and anthropology account for it quite well.
Then you would need a model that takes real biology into account to support this claim given the gene difference observed in Salās flower.
The probability issues around new gene formation and fixation from reproduction are in the way of you creating a realistic model.
We have such a model of real biology. Weāve had it for many decades. Itās called evolutionary theory. Does a continued argument from ignorance help you sleep better at night?
Basic biology gets in the way of your silly Creationist claims Bill. The only issue here is your inability to understand simple scientific concepts.
2 Likes
A two-line reply is not much better than a one-line reply. If you canāt do better, best to stop.
2 Likes
I have made my argument at this point and repeating it does not seem productive.
IMO if you are going to use methodological naturalism then modeling/testing should be required to support a hypothesis or you are going to build your science on very shaky foundations.
You have made no such argument. You have only demonstrated you need a better grasp of what modern evolutionary theory actually entails. I am layman like you, but I am taking my time to build a good understanding of the theory, using textbooks, articles, and video materials. It would highly improve the quality of your conversations here.
And if you are going to employ supernaturalism (or whatever ID employs), then modeling/testing is required to support your hypotheses. Unfortunately for your side, there arenāt any foundations at all, just bubble castles in the air, which continually pop as new data emerges.
2 Likes
IMO if you are going to use methodological naturalism then modeling/testing should be required to support a hypothesis or you are going to build your science on very shaky foundations.
Lets see -where to start
Genetics
Paleontology
Radiometric dating
Biogeography
Distant starlight
Atrophysics, including isochron dating, white dwarf cooling, globular cluster ages
Dendrochronology
Ice core dating
Lake varve dating
Egyptian chronology
Anatomy
Chemostratigraphy
Archaeology
Source criticism
IMO, if youāre gonna use something very shaky as a starting point such as creationism, you better have very solid evidence to back you up.
2 Likes
Most of that applies only to YEC, which as far as I know Bill is not. Or is he? Heās so seldom clear about anything.
He said this (below), suggesting he probably holds on to some literalist view of Genesis. Its not surprising though, since ID is just a mask covering the religious motivation of ID proponents.
Nevertheless, Iāve never seen him say anything about the age of earth or life.
The fact he has repeatedly claimed evidence for Biblical ākindsā is a pretty clear tell.
Not true. He could be an OEC. Bill could tell us, but heās conspicuously absent.
1 Like
I am open to all models. I donāt think universal common descent is viable at this point for the reasons I have articulated. I would like to see more cooperation with YEC guys like Jeanson but agree as with UCD a young universe or earth is not viable at this point.