Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,264 Year: 5,521/9,624 Month: 546/323 Week: 43/143 Day: 5/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Recurrent Problem of Chirality
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 73 of 81 (336652)
07-30-2006 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bradcap1
07-30-2006 1:24 PM


Re: abiogenesis versus common descent, materials, etc
I'm at a loss to understand what is being argued here.
In Message 71, RAZD wrote:
The evidence we have today for genetic etc universal use of L-amino acids is a very small subset of all the evidence of use by all organisms since life on earth began. Thus {L-aminos} are evidence that does not refute {common descent} but it also does not prove {common descent}. Even if you could show that NO forms of life could use {D-aminos} this would not be evidence that would prove {common descent}.
You responded, in Message 72, with:
I will state again that the evidence does not support this position. Unless you can provide it, you must concede this point.
A statement, such as you made, does not refute anything. As best I can tell, you have not refuted RAZD's statement anywhere in this thread. So I don't see that RAZD has to concede anything.
It appears the you've been ignoring my explanations of how gene expression works.
I'm quite sure that RAZD knows very well how gene expression works. But it seems not relevant to the point he was making.
I'm wondering if you have understood what RAZD is arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 1:24 PM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 4:28 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 81 (336751)
07-30-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bradcap1
07-30-2006 8:28 PM


Re: abiogenesis versus common descent, materials, etc
Controversial claim #1:
There could have been any number of lines previous to the one that exists now.
You are perhaps the only person in the world who sees anything controversial there.
See the scientific method in my previous post and the problems associated with this claim.
In my opinion, that a simplistic view of the scientific method. But I won't press that point, since it is off topic for this thread. Even given that version of the scientific method, there is nothing controvsial in the listed claim. I'll suggest that you are misapplying those rules.
Controversial Claim #2:
Homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent.
I can't comment on that one. I haven't been following this thread closely enough to have noticed that RAZD made such a claim. If you can provide a reference to the particular message, I'll look more closely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 8:28 PM Bradcap1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024