#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
it doesn't mean new information won't necessitate revision
Yes it does. This statement is beyond all reasonable doubt. It is as certain as the fact that the earth is not fla ..... oh yeah right.
the insertion of the phrase "or more" means a creationist could agree with the statement too
Only if they had no concern at all for intellectual honesty - oh yeah right again.
evolved into the myriad of extant and extinct species over millions of years..
No creationist would agree with this.
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
How about if we said - "Every living thing ever discovered descended from one or more common ancestors and evolved into the myriad of extant and extinct species over millions of years"
Would that satisfy you as a fact at the heart of evolution?
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
Should this mean that nothing I know is actually a fact? - Saename
SBF abhors "the tyranny of facts". He will not even affirm that the earth is not flat since it is flat from the perspective of a worm and "who is to say the perspective of an astronaut is more valid than that of a worm". I kid you not!
SBF is enthralled by French postmodern relativism.
Tedious arguments about semantics is his forte. In one such conversation I stated that it was a fact that the earth is not flat. SBF replied "it depends on what you mean by the, it depends on what you mean by earth, it depends on what you mean by is, it depends on what you mean by not, it depends on what you mean by flat."
There is literally no form of words, however simple that he will not pick fault with.
More than once I have considered leaving the forum permanently rather than deal with his bullshit.
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
You do think it is impossible that scientists are mistaken about the evidence proving all life on Earth that we know about has a common ancestor?
Your unwillingness to engage in a genuine effort to understand one another is no better than Dumble Fuck's was.
I have explained my understanding of this question three times and have not contradicted myself once.
Let's imagine that scientists discover that cephalopods all belong to a completely separate family tree. Their ancestor emerged from an Alkaline vent around the same time as the ones that led to every other lifeform on earth.
So what? In the context of evolution v creation it makes not a whit of difference. It would mean adding a footnote to the simple statement that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor but in the context of a debate over creationism it would be irrelevant.
Humans would still be descendants of fish via amphibians, reptiles and a long procession of mammals.
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
So you rule out the discovery of extant life (such as at the bottom of the ocean) with a different origin?
No that isn't impossible.
I said that above....
No it's not out the question. It would be a fascinating discovery. It doesn't change the simple fact that every living thing ever discovered from humans to bacteria to blades of grass all evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not one single species or anatomical feature or biochemical pathway requires an intelligent design explanation
So to summarise. The deepest roots of the tree of life might lead to multiple origins. If that is true then every species now known still descended from a common ancestor. If there is some undiscovered prokaryotic species that has remained aloof all these millennia that would be amazing but it would not change the simple fact of evolution any more than the discovery of life on another planet would do so. We would then have more than one parallel story of evolution to tell. That would be very cool.
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
if evolution had multiple starting points then it wouldn't all share a common ancestor.
No not at all. If life did have multiple starting points at its deepest roots they lost their separate lineages a very long time ago. So all life now on earth still shares a common ancestor.
There is no possible combination of words that you would not pick fault with. Tedious semantics is your trademark.
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
When you say "every living thing" I assume you probably mean every living thing on Earth.
Of course. I thought that was obvious. I am very confident that life has also emerged on multiple other planets but I find the idea of panspermia to be unconvincing.
is it really out of the question that, deep in the ocean, or in some other inhospitable habitat, life has arisen separately from the rest of life on Earth?
No it's not out the question. It would be a fascinating discovery. It doesn't change the simple fact that every living thing ever discovered from humans to bacteria to blades of grass all evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Not one single species or anatomical feature or biochemical pathway requires an intelligent design explanation.
In a sense even a creationist could agree with the statement, since they believe that God is the Father of all living creatures
Only if they wanted to indulge in equivocation. Most of them do that.
The you might want to qualify "ancestor" through reproduction of one finite living thing from another
No thanks. The meaning is obvious to everybody except a pedant or somebody who wants to misunderstand.
So Darwin himself wasn't necessarily dogmatic about this supposed central "fact" about evolution
Darwin left open the possibility that what we would now call LUCA was made by a creator although I think he changed this line in later editions of his book. He did not allow for divine interference in the process of evolution.
is it out of the question that new discoveries will undermine this conclusion and that in fact life on Earth had multiple starting points.
No it's not impossible that the very deepest roots of the tree of life have more than one starting point. If it is ever possible to show that to be true it won't change the fact of evolution.
Your final paragraph is woo woo.
there are no authentic/uncontested bible verses that prove a trinity.
the trinity doctrine is arrived at by inferences - not unlike the way that jws arrive at the doctrine that jesus is michael the archangel.
the jw proof texts against the trinity are at least as strong, if not stronger than, trinity proof texts.
Proving the Trinity is irrelevant. What is very relevant and what I think will have a much bigger impact on JWs is demonstrating to them, using their own Bible, the attitude that first century Christians and NT writers had toward Jesus.
I totally agree. I wrote an article on the subject called "Jehovah's Witnesses View of Jesus Compared to the Early Church"
#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..
#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..
#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..
I agree. I have endless patience with genuine objections. Sadly they are very rare.
Perry and ND have no interest in answers to their questions, just as we hid from things that challenged our worldview when we were JWs.
i intend for this to be one of a series of bite-sized ops on the evidence for evolution.. introduction to dna genes are sequences of dna made up of words (codons) each of which are three letters (bases) long.
there are only four letters in the genetic alphabet (acg&t) each word or codon is the recipe for one amino acid.
there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms.
you are NOT helping any JWs
My Inbox suggests otherwise.
You are leaving because I publicly challenged you to a sensible conversation on a topic of your choosing..
