"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"

[pitabread]

good example. we can predict that if we will find a gene that is identical between chimp, human and gorila (comparing to others genes in their geneomes that arent identical), then we can conclude that this gene have an important meaning.

By why would you conclude that the gene has "an important meaning"? What is your basis for that conclusion?

And what about other sequences that are not identical? If identical sequences are important, does this mean non-identical sequences aren't important?

What about relative levels of variation between different species? What is some sequences are similar (say 1% different between genomes) versus other sequences that have more or less variation? Does relative variation matter?

What about sequences with synonymous versus non-synonymous substitutions? Can we say anything about those?

You also said, "we can check by the molecular clock where are the important genomic regions in the genome." How does that work? How the 'molecular clock' tell you anything about important regions of the genome?

You need to provide a lot more detail about how this comparison would work. You haven't really explained anything yet.

 

[pat34lee]

Evolution is a useful science with real-world application and therefore real impacts on human welfare and economy. Why else do you think it's taught?

Because evolution is the origin theory for humanism, atheism and naturalism. All are anti-God religions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because evolution is the origin theory for humanism, atheism and naturalism. All are anti-God religions.

No, none of those are religions.

 

[Non sequitur]

Because evolution is the origin theory for humanism, atheism and naturalism. All are anti-God religions.

Humanism, atheism and naturalism did not exist prior to the theory of evolution?

Interesting origin story.

 

[Non sequitur]

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

Is the id scenario big prediction "since most of the animals are very similar" we will find similarities?

 

[pitabread]

Because evolution is the origin theory for humanism, atheism and naturalism. All are anti-God religions.

Yeah... That's not right.

 

[xianghua]

Is the id scenario big prediction "since most of the animals are very similar" we will find similarities?

no. where i said that?

 

[Non sequitur]

no. where i said that?

Essentially here.

again: if we can make prediction under the id scenario then there is no need for evolution approach here. we already know that most of the animals are very similar. therefore we can predict the same under the id scenario.

Let me take a step back. Theories (I see you like using the word "scenario") are only as good as their falsifiability.

How can "id scenario" be falsified (that means in the future, not post hoc)?

 

[xianghua]

Essentially here.



Let me take a step back. Theories (I see you like using the word "scenario") are only as good as their falsifiability.

How can "id scenario" be falsified (that means in the future, not post hoc)?

first: evolution cant be falsified too. so it's not a scientific theory by this criteria.

secondly: a scientific theory can be prove and not only be disprove. and we indeed can prove the id model as i explained here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[pitabread]

secondly: a scientific theory can be prove and not only be disprove. and we indeed can prove the id model as i explained here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

Your 'argument' has been debunked eight ways from Sunday. I wouldn't be too proud of that thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

first: evolution cant be falsified too. so it's not a scientific theory by this criteria.

Wrong, why do you keep repeating this error? There are many tests that could have falsified the theory in the past, such as the claim that traits can be passed on. We now know that to be true. Traits are passed on, but Darwin's theory predicted it long before we knew it to be a fact.

secondly: a scientific theory can be prove and not only be disprove. and we indeed can prove the id model as i explained here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

And there should be a rule against this. You lost that debate from the start. You have only admitted that you are wrong by linking it.

 

[Non sequitur]

first: evolution cant be falsified too. so it's not a scientific theory by this criteria.

secondly: a scientific theory can be prove and not only be disprove. and we indeed can prove the id model as i explained here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

Ouch. A designer not having to have a designer because one posits it could be eternal leaves you now with more questions and problems to solve. You solved a problem with an unknown variable.

Now 1+2=3 turned into 1+2=x

First: Yes it can. One of many would be fossils in the wrong place. What does "falsified" mean to you?

Secondly: Your argument doesn't prove the id model. It only offers another possibility. What does "prove" mean to you?

 

[xianghua]

Ouch. A designer not having to have a designer because one posits it could be eternal leaves you now with more questions and problems to solve. You solved a problem with an unknown variable.

not at all. there are about 3 options:

1) a robot created by a designer that was created too and so on.
2) a robot evolved naturally.
3)a robot created by an eternal designer.

to me it's clear that the third option is the best conclusion. what is your favorite choice?

First: Yes it can. One of many would be fossils in the wrong place. What does "falsified" mean to you?

so first define what "in the wrong place means". and not by examples but by definition.

 

[Non sequitur]

not at all. there are about 3 options:

1) a robot created by a designer that was created too and so on.
2) a robot evolved naturally.
3) a robot created by an eternal designer.

to me it's clear that the third option is the best conclusion. what is your favorite choice?

Let's say I pick 1. How is 1 any more knowable or testable than 3?

so first define what "in the wrong place means". and not by examples but by definition.

Mammals in the Devonian would pose a problem. (Like finding a car before the invention of the combustible engine would pose a problem for the person who said they were the first to invent a combustible engine.)

In definition terms, finding a thing to have existed before it should/could have.

What does "falsified" mean to you?

 

[pat34lee]

Wrong, why do you keep repeating this error? There are many tests that could have falsified the theory in the past, such as the claim that traits can be passed on. We now know that to be true. Traits are passed on, but Darwin's theory predicted it long before we knew it to be a fact.

Mendellian genetics proved it without need for Darwin's theory.

I keep seeing things like a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution,
but we know it isn't close to the truth. They have been found.

But they just make up new fairy tales to cover the truth.
Or they ignore or discredit anything that goes against their theory.

DNA falsified evolution because of its complexity.
Dinosaur DNA falsified evolution because no living matter can last millions of years.
ENCODE and the destruction of junk DNA falsified evolution.
The fact that genes from the oldest know bacteria is EXACTLY the same
as modern DNA, and can be exchanged 1:1 falsified evolution.
The fact that all animals and plants are not evolving, but are headed
very rapidly toward genetic failure and extinction falsified evolution.

 

[Tanj]

Mendellian genetics proved it without need for Darwin's theory.

No it didn't.

I keep seeing things like a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution,
but we know it isn't close to the truth. They have been found.

Yes it is and no they haven't.

But they just make up new fairy tales to cover the truth.
Or they ignore or discredit anything that goes against their theory.

Not true.

DNA falsified evolution because of its complexity.

No it didn't.

Dinosaur DNA falsified evolution because no living matter can last millions of years.

Incorrect.

ENCODE and the destruction of junk DNA falsified evolution.

Not true.

The fact that genes from the oldest know bacteria is EXACTLY the same
as modern DNA, and can be exchanged 1:1 falsified evolution.

The opposite is true.

The fact that language and alphabets began as complex and have
gotten less so over the centuries falsified evolution.

No it doesn't.

The fact that all animals and plants are not evolving, but are headed
very rapidly toward genetic failure and extinction falsified evolution.

Also false.


I gotta say, this arguing without the need for evidence is much easier than the alternative.

 

[Jimmy D]

Mendellian genetics proved it without need for Darwin's theory.

I keep seeing things like a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution,
but we know it isn't close to the truth. They have been found.

But they just make up new fairy tales to cover the truth.
Or they ignore or discredit anything that goes against their theory.

DNA falsified evolution because of its complexity.
Dinosaur DNA falsified evolution because no living matter can last millions of years.
ENCODE and the destruction of junk DNA falsified evolution.
The fact that genes from the oldest know bacteria is EXACTLY the same
as modern DNA, and can be exchanged 1:1 falsified evolution.
The fact that all animals and plants are not evolving, but are headed
very rapidly toward genetic failure and extinction falsified evolution.

It's quite incredible that you've managed to get so many things wrong in just one post. Creationists are sometimes their own worst enemy.

 

[pitabread]

Mendellian genetics proved it without need for Darwin's theory.

I keep seeing things like a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution,
but we know it isn't close to the truth. They have been found.

But they just make up new fairy tales to cover the truth.
Or they ignore or discredit anything that goes against their theory.

DNA falsified evolution because of its complexity.
Dinosaur DNA falsified evolution because no living matter can last millions of years.
ENCODE and the destruction of junk DNA falsified evolution.
The fact that genes from the oldest know bacteria is EXACTLY the same
as modern DNA, and can be exchanged 1:1 falsified evolution.
The fact that all animals and plants are not evolving, but are headed
very rapidly toward genetic failure and extinction falsified evolution.

This has to be satire. Please tell me this is satire.

 

[xianghua]

Let's say I pick 1. How is 1 any more knowable or testable than 3?

it's may not be testable but it's more logical. but it's good to know that we both ignore the second option.

Mammals in the Devonian would pose a problem. (Like finding a car before the invention of the combustible engine would pose a problem for the person who said they were the first to invent a combustible engine.)

In definition terms, finding a thing to have existed before it should/could have.

the problem with this is that we can push back the creature appearance. so if for instance we will find a tetrapod before a missing link between a fish and a tetrapod (its means instad of 1-2-3 we will find 1-3-2) we can just claim that tetrapods evolved earlier than we thought. so basically this argument cant be test or falsified evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

it's may not be testable but it's more logical. but it's good to know that we both ignore the second option.




the problem with this is that we can push back the creature appearance. so if for instance we will find a tetrapod before a missing link between a fish and a tetrapod (its means instad of 1-2-3 we will find 1-3-2) we can just claim that tetrapods evolved earlier than we thought. so basically this argument cant be test or falsified evolution.

Instead of concerning yourself with these hypothetical and frankly unlikely scenarios why don't you spend a bit of time pondering over what we have actually found in the fossil record? I'm sure it would be a more constructive use of your time.