#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..
There are two interesting things I noticed, Perry.
Firstly, you criticize cofty for ignoring your criticism. But the fact is that you ignored my criticism. I showed you why your argumentation is logically fallacious.
Secondly, you say that cofty doesn't have science education to talk about evolution. What education do you have that would make you a qualified god detector? Because, I presume, you believe in intelligent design?
so in my last post i talked about how i had told my younger siblings how i didn't plan to get baptized or ever be a witness.
i thought i could trust them but i guess i was wrong, they're just kids after all.
my oldest brother (who's 11) told on me today.
Associates degree online? Does this actually mean anything in the real world...?
#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..
Thanks, cofty.
By the way, I asked you a question in your other thread about the evolution of the eye. I would greatly appreciate it if you could, in your free time, take a look at it. Here's the link to the thread: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5429397198733312/evolution-fact-40-what-use-half-eye (sorry about the series of 3 posts!!!)
#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..
Another thing I forgot to mention is that even if cofty were to demonstrate that p is true, you, Perry, would then most likely commit the fallacy of moving the goalposts. You would just move on to another argument from personal incredulity. This is what evolution-deniers have been doing for a century and a half.
#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..
Perry, I'd like to remind you that you are committing a logical fallacy―the argument from ignorance. You conclude that evolution is false because cofty cannot answer your specific question, in this case the question about how natural selection accounts for the growth of a caterpillar into a butterfly. The argument from ignorance is when you conclude that p is false because it has not shown to be true (or vice versa.)
In this specific case, cofty hasn't demonstrated that p is true, p being the proposition, "In practice, evolution can and does account for the growth of caterpillar into a butterfly." Hence, your conclusion is that p is false. This is not how science is done. Before you conclude that p is in fact false, you need to find evidentiary support for this conclusion. The same applies to cofty, and the same applies to you. If you ignore that, you are committing the aforementioned fallacy.
There are two other problems. Firstly, cofty has not actually claimed p. You have. The only conclusion you can imply from cofty's history of posts is that he claims q, q being the proposition, "In principle [not in practice], evolution can and does account for the growth of caterpillar into a butterfly." Insofar as I understand cofty's position, he is saying that in principle, there is an answer to your question. His evidence is his 40 posts on the topic of evolution. Hence, I think he would argue, if you look into Google Scholar, you will find an answer--because the answer exists in principle. Do not respond to this part of my comment unless you understand the philosophical distinction between answers in principle and answers in practice.
Another problem is that you are dishonestly shifting the burden of proof. You conclude that p is false because nobody has demonstrated it to be true. But wait a second: it is your job, as well as anybody else's, to provide evidence for your conclusion. If p is false, you need to demonstrate that. But needless to say, of course, cofty hasn't claimed p anyway. His position, as far as I understand it, is q.
If you, Perry, want to continue your conversation with cofty while ensuring it is productive, I would advise you to stay on the same page as he. Otherwise, you will just end up committing fallacies. If his position is not p but q, prove that q is false--not p. And to prove that q is false, you would need to discredit his past 40 posts, which is actual evidence for the claim that in principle, evolution can answer your question.
creationists often refer to the words of darwin when he pondered the evolution of the complex eye.
he said that to suppose that the complex eye evolve by natural selection seems "absurd in the highest possible degree".
what they always ignore is that darwin went right on in the very next sentence to propose how the eye could have evolved and that numerous gradations must exist between the simplest light detecting organs and the complex vertebrate eye.. in the 150 years since darwin published his book not only have those gradations been discovered in the natural world but the very genes that build the eye have been discovered by science.
Though my next question would be... why does there need to be a certain amount of space between the lens and the retina? Why did the vitreous mass evolve into a lens specifically in the front of the eye, with the rest of the vitreous mass acting as this space between the lens and the retina?
creationists often refer to the words of darwin when he pondered the evolution of the complex eye.
he said that to suppose that the complex eye evolve by natural selection seems "absurd in the highest possible degree".
what they always ignore is that darwin went right on in the very next sentence to propose how the eye could have evolved and that numerous gradations must exist between the simplest light detecting organs and the complex vertebrate eye.. in the 150 years since darwin published his book not only have those gradations been discovered in the natural world but the very genes that build the eye have been discovered by science.
Okay, I understand it now. The lens is the vitreous mass. The two are differentiated on the diagram of, say, a human eye because the lens is the zone of the vitreous mass which has a higher refractory index.
creationists often refer to the words of darwin when he pondered the evolution of the complex eye.
he said that to suppose that the complex eye evolve by natural selection seems "absurd in the highest possible degree".
what they always ignore is that darwin went right on in the very next sentence to propose how the eye could have evolved and that numerous gradations must exist between the simplest light detecting organs and the complex vertebrate eye.. in the 150 years since darwin published his book not only have those gradations been discovered in the natural world but the very genes that build the eye have been discovered by science.
cofty, so I'm reading Climbing Mount Improbable, and I'm already halfway through. Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye pretty well, but there's something I don't quite understand. According to him, the vitreous mass (vitreous gel?) can act as a lens. But the human eye has both the vitreous mass and a lens as separate parts of the organ. Does it mean that the vitreous mass can act as a lens and as a gel to separate the retina from the lens? What's the deal?
i would really like to read the thoughts of an creationist as they lie on their deathbed.
their honest thoughts.
their terrors.
scratchme1010 - You again? Ok, once again, who the fuck are you for me to even bother addressing you?
No, it's not him again. This thread was created by Coded Logic to parrot (mock?) the troll you're referring to.
#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..
Bad_Wolf: Therefore, God did it, eh?
That's just one big argument from personal incredulity.
