Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You rigged my post! It's a rigged system folks.
I'm sorry, but that's not how physics works. Yes, you draw deductive conclusions, but only within the physical model your working with. In this case, it's a model that includes a constant speed of light and a wide range of other assumptions about physics. Within that model, you can compare observations with expectations under different hypotheses. You can't just look at the data and draw deductive conclusions about the true model however -- it's still inductive reasoning. Exactly the same is true of evolutionary biology. There's a reason that it's universally considered a scientific field within the scientific world.
Of course you have to make assumptions, but you draw from determined variables, not looking at fossils or genome similarities. This logical deduction is different.
Have you read Birch and Ehrlich's paper? They're arguing against the unwarranted application of evolutionary theory; they're not arguing that the fact of common descent is somehow in doubt. There are frequently multiple possible hypotheses in evolutionary theory to explain a particular observation. In contrast, there is at present no competing hypothesis that could replace common descent as an overall explanation for biological diversity.
You draw from determined values within your model: mutation rates, recombination rates, insertion probabilities for endogenous retroviruses... What was the difference again?
How much of both kinds of science have you done?
Of course there's empirical evidence that the speed of light is constant. There's also empirical evidence that long terminal repeats are the result of unique retroviral insertions, and empirical evidence that genetic differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations. I'm arguing that there's no fundamental difference between the fields. I mean, sure, physics has a much easier subject matter to study, but biologists have to make do anyway.
Some genome similarities are very striking, however--such as the location of random retrovirus insertions which we share with other primates with whom we have other indications of common ancestry.
Right, but your inability to understand evolution is not my problem. That is your problems. If you won't let yourslef learn then that is your fault. Most creationists simply won't let themselves understand. That is one of the reasons that your side loses in court. Judges do at least understand the nature of evidence. Then can clearly see that their is evidence for evolution and none to speak of for creationism.
What "other explanations"? Refuted or self contradicting explanation are not explanations. You keep making thins claim but never post any.
You're comparing mutation rates and recombination rates to the speed of light constant and assumptions we make in physical models... right. Even with these mutation rates, we still have to look at fossils and make deductions based on connecting dots etc. This is not the same as observing and making logical deductions.
Oh I'm much more a physics man admittedly. Probably wasn't hard to tell. (Or maybe it was hard to tell, and I just appear generally scientifically ignorant in all aspects. That's okay, I'll take it on the chin
)"easier subject matter to study" How dare you
There being no better explanation does not necessarily mean the only available one is true.
I understand it, I just don't find it convincing enough.
it's not the observation that is falsified, it is the prediction being falsified by the observation. You thought that dogs giving birth to cats as an hypothetical observation which would falsify evolution was silly; how about this: show that the duck and the platypus share stretches of identical DNA giving rise to their bills and webbed feet. Evolutionary biologists would have a lot of splainin to do about that.
This does not necessitate that we actually share a common ancestor though. They suggest many things, but do not prove them.
You're asking me to just show things which don't exist. The point is not that there are random things that could end the theory, but that there should be things which can't be explained by any other means, which could end the theory.
