Discussing "29 evidences..."

John Paul:
Why is you don't have to substantiate your claim that there is no barrier? Either you demonstrate the alleged barrier doesn't exist or you have no argument.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have. See the evidence of either Port Jackson shark:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~kgarbutt/NVS2.htmlOr Doolittle:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.htmlBoth of these show strong evidence of common descent that without a barrier at least back to the difference between vertebrates and invertebrates. Now, if you are going to claim the barrier is before then you are revising your position after making previous claims.John Paul:
Yup, sure. They are great evidences for coomon descent only if you exclude Common Creator.Larry:
Neither empirically nor theoretically is there any barrier. If you going to claim one you need to come up with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications of such a barrier. I would suggest the above reference work is going to be hard to not count as a falsification of any hypotheses you devise, however. What predictions are there of such a barrier? How do we test for it? Given the current evidence it is an astounding claim that you need to support.John Paul:
There isn't any empirical evidence to support the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. If you can't provide the evidence then stop making the claim. All you are doing is hoping that our ignorance of genetics will carry the day for evolutionists.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry:
While evolutionary biology posits speed limits to change in some respects, it does not posit a barrier and there is no evidence for it. If you want to make a claim, demonstrate the claim. The claim that there is no barrier is based on our theoretical understanding of evolution and the observations to date. It isn’t based on ignorance, but on the observations.
John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Address the observations. They have repeatedly been provided.John Paul:
What observations? The ones that assume the ToE is indicative of reality and are therefore circular? Or are they just post hoc explanations for one's beliefs?Larry:
What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation.John Paul:
I made no such claim.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
None of your cites list even one testable hypotheses, any confirming evidence and no potential falsifications.John Paul:
The true origins site does. Did you even read it?Larry:
The sites you linked to are doing nothing more than what you have done--made assertions.John Paul:
You seem to have no problems with making assertions. That is what the ToE is. What genetic or biological evidence is there to substantiate the great transformations required by the ToE?------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

John Paul:
Yup, sure. They are great evidences for coomon descent only if you exclude Common Creator.

---

So take the two cases and show me a hypothesis that is testable, has confirming evidence and potential falsifications and is consistent with a common creator.

quote:

---

John Paul:
There isn't any empirical evidence to support the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. If you can't provide the evidence then stop making the claim. All you are doing is hoping that our ignorance of genetics will carry the day for evolutionists.

---

The evidence has been provided. Please address it. Simply not reading the evidence or the synopsis I have given you and asserting that it doesn’t exist isn’t an argument. Indeed it is denial.

quote:

---

John Paul:
Same goes for you. All direct observations (ie experiments) to date give evidence for a barrier.

---

Full bibliographic citations. Now, before doing so you should consider an observation is required in the context of a hypothesisnot just something done in a laboratory. The scientific method doesn’t require direct observation of a phenomenon underway, but of objectively observable evidence of phenomenon. You have been given such evidence, be kind and address it.

quote:

---

Address the observations. They have repeatedly been provided.
John Paul:
What observations? The ones that assume the ToE is indicative of reality and are therefore circular? Or are they just post hoc explanations for one's beliefs?

---

No, the ones that are cited that you refuse to read. They also make specific hypotheses regarding the pattern and nature of genetic codes that are met. Please address this evidence in detail. Either you can demonstrate a falsification of it, or you can provide a scientific theory that accounts for them as does evolution. I’m not sure what you are waiting for.

quote:

---

Larry:
What you claim is that evolution must produce macromutations in a single generation.
John Paul:
I made no such claim.

---

It is clearly what you are implying. Single generations are not likely to show radical differences. If you are claiming there should be you are simply wrong. If you aren’t then you need to be precise in claiming what you would accept. Please be more precise then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
None of your cites list even one testable hypotheses, any confirming evidence and no potential falsifications.

​

John Paul:
The true origins site does. Did you even read it?

---

What is a testable hypotheses with confirming evidence and potential falsifications from Tim? Tim can't answer the question, so I doubt you can. Of course, given Tim's exceptional inability to discuss anything he claims this isn't a surprise.I read it when Wallace first posted it. And it isn't a theory, it is a laundry list of assertions.

quote:

---

Larry:
The sites you linked to are doing nothing more than what you have done--made assertions.

​

John Paul:
You seem to have no problems with making assertions. That is what the ToE is. What genetic or biological evidence is there to substantiate the great transformations required by the ToE?

---

May I again, refer you to the genetic evidence of the Port Jackson Shark and the Sea Cucumber? Good, I will. Now, in both cases one is able to track the changes in specific code from an ancient species to current species. In the case of the Sea Cucumber we even are able to track down a specific gene that was duplicated long ago. In both cases molecular clocks are consistent with common descent and offer solid evidence. If there is another theory that provides an explanation--please provide that theory.Oh, and if you noticed Behe accepts Doolittle's evidence as evidence of common descent, just not natural selection. Though the discussion of that is contained on Miller's site.Cheers,
Larry

I think the focus in this thread may be a bit too broad to effectively go anywhere. Perhaps one or at most two or three evidences could be discussed at a time.--Percy

Occupation: electronics engineer
Location: MassachusettsYo' John Paul, er... I mean Cool Hand Luke, er... I mean... forget it! I am so confused! I thought that CHL was the electronics eng.? When did you move up north?
stp

stp:
Occupation: electronics engineer
Location: Massachusetts
Yo' John Paul, er... I mean Cool Hand Luke, er... I mean... forget it! I am so confused! I thought that CHL was the electronics eng.? When did you move up north?John Paul:
Hey STP! Que pasa? 'Cool Hand Luke' and I are both engineers, both with electronic backgrounds. We worked at the same company in Miami back in the '80s, played golf together and were (and still are) pretty good friends.I moved to Massachusetts for two reasons- 1) I was born here and 2) the electronics industry is big. I have lived in Massachusetts since 1985. He moved here because the pay was much better and his wife is from New Hampshire (Lincoln- I think) and missed the season changes (that's what she says). However it looks like they are moving- looks like the Atlanta area, but it all depends on what happens at INTEL in the upcoming months. My company is cutting the work force by 21% so I may be moving too. If I get laid off (doubtful, but ya never know)maybe I will try my luck at being a sky-marshall... Great to hear from ya though. Congrats on becoming an OCW forum moderator!------------------
John Paul

Larry:
May I again, refer you to the genetic evidence of the Port Jackson Shark and the Sea Cucumber? Good, I will. Now, in both cases one is able to track the changes in specific code from an ancient species to current species.John Paul:
I guess that is what you think you have done.Larry:
In the case of the Sea Cucumber we even are able to track down a specific gene that was duplicated long ago.John Paul:
Yup sure. Can you test that hypothesis? I mean can you take a Sea Cucumber and actually observe that gene getting duplicated and then getting mutated to the 'new' gene that is its alleged descedant?The problem here is not only does that gene have to duplicated and then mutated to a new function (something that has never been directly observed, tested, repeated & verified) also other changes have to come about. Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?Larry:
In both cases molecular clocks are consistent with common descent and offer solid evidence.John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?

---

Um bud I dont think he said the shark evolved from the sea cucumber, or even that they had a common ancestor.... Go back and re-read it, I think you will find that he didnt say they were related at all....

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
From what I have read 'molecular clocks' are not only unreliable but also assume the ToE is indicative of reality.

---

When your sources for science are exclusively creationist books and web sites, then doubtless your understanding of the issues will be lacking.It depends on which clocks you are talking about. There is no universal (global) molecular clock, since different loci mutate at different rates. Individual clocks, however, can be useful in the timing of long-term events due to the stochastic nature of the process.The model of local molecular clocks - which assumes no constant mutation rate - has been used in studies in which dates inferred from clock calculations were strikingly similar to dates inferred from the fossil record.Seems like more than coincidence, no?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Or are you saying this alleged gene duplication followed by function adding mutations was all that was needed to go from a sea cuc to a port jackson shark?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Um bud I dont think he said the shark evolved from the sea cucumber, or even that they had a common ancestor.... Go back and re-read it, I think you will find that he didnt say they were related at all....John Paul:
Oops- thanks joz (bud) and my apologies Larry for misrepresenting what you posted. It was unintentional...OK then, how is a sea cucumber evolving into a sea cucumber or a port jackson shark evolving into a port jackson shark evidence for the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality?Thanks again joz- that reminds me to not post before my morning cup of Earl Grey... ------------------
John Paul