Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,265 Year: 5,522/9,624 Month: 547/323 Week: 44/143 Day: 6/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Recurrent Problem of Chirality
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5203 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 9 of 81 (285767)
02-10-2006 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 5:25 PM


Re: on sources of Chirality
Evopeach, do you know what an argument from incredulity is? Your latest post is a classic example.
Scientists don't claim to know for certain how chirality came to be. What jar has done is to refute your primary assertion, namely:
Evopeach writes:
Another demonstration of intelligent design.. inexplicable by evolutionary theory.
We do have plausible explanations within evolutionary theory. We don't know whether any of them are correct or not. But, your claim that they are "inexplicable" is falsified. Unexplained does not equal inexplicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 5:25 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5203 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 75 of 81 (336684)
07-30-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bradcap1
07-30-2006 4:28 PM


Re: abiogenesis versus common descent, materials, etc
Bradcap, I've been lurking here, adn your posts are confusing, as they seem to be ascribing a "position" to RAZD and others that they have not expressed and do not appear to hold.
For example:
Bradcap1 writes:
Razd proposes that more than one line could have existed prior to the line that exists now. I stated that there is no evidence to support this view. He has supported my statement by twice admitting that there is no evidence to support his claim.
It appears that RAZD agrees with you on this - he says that there is no evidence for nor against the idea, just that it is a possibility that hasn't been (and perhaps can't be) falsified. It also appears that you agree that it can't be ruled out nor supported based on the evidence.
RAZD and NWR don't appear to be disagreeing with you on anything. So, sarcastic suggestions that they submit a "claim" for publication are rather out of the blue, as they are making no controversial claim, as far as I can see.
I wonder if you think they're creationists, and that's why you're being so combative?
Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 4:28 PM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 8:17 PM Belfry has not replied
 Message 77 by Bradcap1, posted 07-30-2006 8:28 PM Belfry has replied

  
Belfry
Member (Idle past 5203 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 79 of 81 (336756)
07-30-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Bradcap1
07-30-2006 8:28 PM


Re: abiogenesis versus common descent, materials, etc
Bradcap1 writes:
Controversial claim #1:
There could have been any number of lines previous to the one that exists now.
See the scientific method in my previous post and the problems associated with this claim.
You yourself have agreed that there could have been more, but there is no evidence to support this view. So, you agree with RAZD - how then is it controversial? Would you say that it's impossible? In that case, the burden of proof would fall upon you.
Bradcap1 writes:
Controversial Claim #2:
Homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent.
See assays based on complimentary base pairing and the discipline of bioinformatics (comparative genomics), as well as any of the thousands of published research papers reporting on homologous genes.
Please show where RAZD made the claim that homology between genomes is not evidence of common descent. It is customary in requests like this to both quote and link to the message you're quoting (or at least tell us the message number).
The only related point I can find of RAZD's is where he said (with respect to chirality as evidence of common descent in Message 34):
RAZD writes:
I concur, common descent does\is not need to be a necessary result -- it can be a matter of common resources.
That's a far cry from the claim you're crediting to him.
Edited by Belfry, : typo

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