quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Page:
Previously, you dealt only with issues surrounding abiogenesis.
John Paul:
That is a lie. As had been pointed out to you earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotty:
It is no lie at all. Please re-read your opening post:
Here is a challenge to evolutionists: Please answer all the questions below to the best of your ability.
Could provide us with the evidence that life could originate from non-life via purely natural processes?
(HINT: there isn’t any:
The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig Klyce )
How could that be objectively tested and falsified?
What are the alternatives if life could not have originated via purely natural processes?
Why are those alternatives un-scientific?
If abiogenesis and evolution are separate why does one theory begin where the other ends? (abiogenesis ends with the formation of progenotes and that is where the theory of evolution begins)
How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*
How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*
How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*
Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?
...
Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.
John Paul:
Now as everyone can see I wasn't ONLY talking about abiogenesis. Anyonwe with a little common sense could see the context of the abiogenesis questions was to determine what reasoning is there to not even consider ID or Creation as viable alternatives.
Scotty:
Therefore, you deal primarily with abiogensis.
John Paul:
There IS a difference between ONLY & PRIMARILY. However neither would be correct.
On the femurs- you have no shame do you?
Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.
John Paul: Do you have a reference?
Scott:
I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:
Cetaceans
quote:
The forelimbs are specialized to form flippers, and the hind limbs and pelvis are extremely small and do not normally extend out of the body wall of the animal.
Scott:
That is all. Please demonstrate that I provided a link in which it is claimed that femurs are also appendages unto themselves.
John Paul:
Are you trying to tell me that a) there is more to the alleged "hindlimbs" besides the femur? and b) that the embryo slide you linked to shows more than a femur?
On phylogeny:
In order to analyze which amino acid replacements have occurred during the evolution of humans and apes, the evolutionary relationships among the species being studied must be inferred.
Yup, sounds real objective to me.
toodles scotty
------------------
John Paul
™ Version 4.2
