Especially now that we have started investigating the epigenome and the proteome. People are also starting to devote more time to carbohydrates and focusing less on the traditional protein and DNA angles. There is still plenty to learn about carbohydrates.
All I'm saying is that nothing in science is ever set in stone and that is what makes it so awesome to me. If that means we discover another valid explanation for what we see today as a merging of 2 chromosomes then bring it on.
The box said "requires Windows7 or better" so I installed Linux.
You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.
And in case you missed it the video talked about evolution and creation so it was philosophical from the start.
You're still missing the point though. It's not about the MERGE. It's about the claim that it was due to a mutation. It does not matter if you only know of one possible mechanism. That alone does not make it falsifiable. There are other possible mechanisms like alien splicing but it's just as unfalsifiable.
Think I found our friend trolling on news24 columns too. Link: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-F...-Head-20120618 scroll down the comments, I think you'll find "Sean's" comments very familiar, maybe brothers
Last edited by DrJohnZoidberg; 19-06-2012 at 05:49 PM. Reason: forgot link
=== The HP Proliant MicroServer Wiki - http://myhtpc.co.za/hpwiki ===
In some states more than half the pubic don't want evolution taught in their public schools, you guessed it, the backward hillbilly lower IQ states. (A lower IQ has a mysterious link to being credulous, polls would show, fancy that?)
And even though in some states more than half the public (public opinion) dont support evolution, it is still taught in public schools after court cases time and time again are in favor of the ToE, you know why that is? evidence holds up in court and it's things like this that is evidence for the ToE and why it is still taught in public schools.
Crackpot theories like creationism don't have a shred of evidence which is why they cannot win a court case and their crackpot ideas will remain in their homes and / or in their churches.
I'll say it again, in another way this time to not confuse you.
Scientific truths are not a democracy. So you're wasting your time, so are we by even arguing with you, which is why some are even ignoring you entirely.
So no it's not a legitimate statement. You can't get around the fact that science needs public support to move forward.
You can't use the current state of affairs to prove that science is independent of the public because it's currently the public that's supporting science. Sorry man but you're grasping at straws. Just concede the point and move on.
Another example is books. Most books contain mainly lower case letters and spaces. That means any two books we compare will be at least 3.7% similar. Does that mean the same author wrote them? No.
If we use individual bits to compare files any 2 randomly generated ones will have 50% expected similarity. Using the comparison to come to the conclusion Windows and Linux were based on one another in any way except being operating systems and running on the same instruction set would be wrong.
DNA is composed of 4 combinations of base pairs (the bits) so we would expect at least 25% similarity if functions were not similar. The acclaimed 40% similarity with a banana is actually more like 20% and since we make or use many of the same enzymes and proteins we would expect a similarity.
Commonality also doesn't necessarily indicate a common ancestor but can also mean a common designer. If we look at two cars we can compare their parts and from that conclude if they were made by the same company. More commonality therefor gives a higher indication of a single designer rather than multiple ones. And no I won't stop talking about this because some people here have personal issues as it IS science. Forensic science looks at factors that indicate an intelligent cause to determine if the cause of death is an accident or a crime. If somebody went to a pathologist and told them they can't continue because it's not science they'll laugh at such a ridiculous claim and rightfully come to the conclusion that that person has a hidden agenda.
Indeed I'd venture it may be impossible to decern design without having some knowledge of the designer.
What we do know about human designers is that while design faults may persist for multiple generations wear and tear or damage is unlikely to.
Or not, some designs are governed by function. Some ideas arise independantly mainly out of changed environments.More commonality therefor gives a higher indication of a single designer rather than multiple ones.
Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012