by cofty 291 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Hooby you really don't understand it do you?
There are three possibilities.
1 - DNA sequences identical across all species
2 - DNA sequences randomly different across all species
3 - DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution.
Turns out the answer was number 3.
Hooby you really don't understand it do you?
There are three possibilities.
With 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c functional sequences there are only “three possibilities”?
Talk origins and other evolutionists here imply that Its either “random” sequences or its evolution!
You imply that if it’s not “random” sequences or “identical” sequences, then it must be evolution!
Why do Evolutionists like to present the argument in ways that are so favorable to evolution?
3 - DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution.
Life’s hierarchical pattern was recognized by creationist scientists PREVIOUS to modern evolutionary theory. The fact that cytochrome c sequences conform to this same pattern does not mean that evolution is the only option.
With 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c functional sequences there are only “three possibilities”? - Hooby
Yes. Can you suggest a fourth one?
You imply that if it’s not “random” sequences or “identical” sequences, then it must be evolution!
No I didn't. I said that the third possibility was that 'DNA sequences vary in a pattern that exactly corresponds to the relationships previously identified by evolution'.
This turned out to be the case. It was the most profound piece of evidence for common ancestry.
Why do Evolutionists like to present the argument in ways that are so favorable to evolution?
There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are just scientists who accept the evidence for common ancestry and superstitious folk who don't.
Life’s hierarchical pattern was recognized by creationist scientists before modern evolutionary theory.
There is no hierarchy of life. No scientist has thought that way for about a century.
There is also no such thing as a 'creationist scientist'. That is an oxymoron like a single batchelor or a well-read creationist.
The fact that cytochrome c sequences conform to this same pattern does not mean that evolution is the only option
Yes is absolutely does. Your failure to understand the significance of the evidence is irrelevant.
Hh
H
There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are just scientists who accept the evidence for common ancestry and superstitious folk who don't.
If “there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist', then why do you find the word “evolutionist” in evolution literature?
The above is from an article by Francisco J Ayala (a prominent Evolutionary Biologist).1998 Brittanica Macropaedia
Note the paragraph that begins with “Evolutionists debate . . .”
Hooby - In the context of the page you posted as evidence Alaya is using the word to refer to scientists who specialise in the field of molecular evolution. You used it in a pejorative sense to refer to anybody who accepts the fact of evolution.
Virtually all scientists are 'evolutionists' in the second sense of the word as you used it, but only a percentage of those are 'evolutionists' in the first sense as Alaya uses it.
It is a silly descriptor in the way you use it. Should somebody who accepts the fact of gravity be labelled a 'gravitaionalist' or should scientists who don't believe that the solar system revolves around the earth be called heliocentricists?
Meanwhile back on topic it appears you have got nothing.
“There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. There are just scientists who accept the evidence for common ancestry and superstitious folk who don't.” Cofty
“Virtually all scientists are 'evolutionists' in the second sense of the word as you used it, but only a percentage of those are 'evolutionists' in the first sense as Alaya uses it.” Cofty
Why should anyone consider taking the time to do any sort of serious dialogue with a person like this ?
Did you even bother to read my reply - no of course you didn't.
The OP summarises a very powerful piece of evidence for the common descent of all living things and you would rather deflect attention by waffling about semantics.
I used to be an ignorant (not pejorative) creationist too. Then I spent many years educating myself. If you ever decide to do the same let me know and I promise to help you.
From this point forward on this thread I am minimizing direct dialogue with the poster cofty.
