Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

...several well-documented accounts presented in different media outlets did. I showed you those.

No Greg, you didn't show anything other than a link to one article. You quoted it saying "Palumbi said nurse sharks with only one dorsal fin, instead of two, have been spotted, possible evidence of mutations caused by radiation exposure."


That article... and that quote have nothing to do with neutral mutations. (That is what you were trying to prove). And...reminder, you originally thought neutral mutations had caused an extra fin, and now you are claiming neutral mutations caused the loss of a fin. So it would seem that the evidence does not matter to you which way it is, but it is the matter of trying to explain it within your non-falsifiable beliefs.

I never argued that a fin needed to be lost or gained. I've been arguing the entire time THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.

I understand what you are attempting to explain Greg. You are trying to say that if a mutation doesn't cause an immediate, and observable effect, then it's a neutral mutation. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying? If so, you are wrong and know VERY little about genetics. VSDM's never have an immediate observable effect.


What I suspect you will do now, rather than argue with logic and evidence is throw out ad hominem again and say you are done.


BTW... you likely know this already, but the loss of a fin would be a loss of genetic information which is consistent with the biblical model. All of creation is subject to entropy.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Bruce.

 

[Jose Fly]

No Greg, you didn't show anything other than a link to one article. You quoted it saying "Palumbi said nurse sharks with only one dorsal fin, instead of two, have been spotted, possible evidence of mutations caused by radiation exposure."

So far that's better than what you did. You linked to a paper you clearly didn't understand, didn't quote anything from it, and ran away when I asked you what you thought it was about.

That article... and that quote have nothing to do with neutral mutations.

So how about you quote the part in THE ARTICLE you linked to where it talks about microsat function.

What I suspect you will do now, rather than argue with logic and evidence is throw out ad hominem again and say you are done.

Or he could be like you and just leave.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No Greg, you didn't show anything other than a link to one article. You quoted it saying "Palumbi said nurse sharks with only one dorsal fin, instead of two, have been spotted, possible evidence of mutations caused by radiation exposure."


That article... and that quote have nothing to do with neutral mutations. (That is what you were trying to prove). And...reminder, you originally thought neutral mutations had caused an extra fin, and now you are claiming neutral mutations caused the loss of a fin. So it would seem that the evidence does not matter to you which way it is, but it is the matter of trying to explain it within your non-falsifiable beliefs.

I understand what you are attempting to explain Greg. You are trying to say that if a mutation doesn't cause an immediate, and observable effect, then it's a neutral mutation. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying? If so, you are wrong and know VERY little about genetics. VSDM's never have an immediate observable effect.


What I suspect you will do now, rather than argue with logic and evidence is throw out ad hominem again and say you are done.


BTW... you likely know this already, but the loss of a fin would be a loss of genetic information which is consistent with the biblical model. All of creation is subject to entropy.

I'll admit to this: that 50 or so years is not enough time to determine whether or not with absolute 100% certainty that single-finned sharks are less or more fit than double-finned. But I cited that source reliably.

I'll also admit to (what I'll call) stretching the term 'neutral mutation' too far. I believed it stretched beyond the molecular level, and included add-ons or losses of body parts/functions.

That being said, I suppose my assertion that nurse sharks in the Bikini Atoll are evidence of a real-life neutral mutation is indeed inaccurate, and I must rescind it. I included under "neutral mutation" the mutation of a function/part that serves no help or hindrance to the individual. That was inaccurate.

But neutral mutations do exist. Which I believe was the inception of our conversation. Should we tread that path?


I admit when I have erred.

 

[Stripe]

Neutral mutations do exist.

No, they don't.

Would you like to learn how we know?

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, they don't.

Would you like to learn how we know?

Sure. Right after I give one of many examples of how I know they do:
Via Wiki -- "Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce."

 

[Stripe]

Sure. Right after I give one of many examples of how I know they do:
Via Wiki -- "Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce."

Finding someone who says the same wrong thing as you do is not very convincing.

 

[6days]

You linked to a paper you clearly didn't understand, didn't quote anything from it, and ran away when I asked you what you thought it was about.

Jose... it was you who ran away. I asked if you that the microsatelite region served no purpose... you still did not answer. As to the link...I may have it wrong, but I did suggest one function. SO, again... the question was 'are you asking about the microsatelite region because you don't know? Or, because you believe it's junk?

 

[6days]

Via Wiki -- "Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce."

Ok... good, so we have a definition from Wiki. Now.... how can you show that such a thing as neutral mutation exists? It can't be shown Greg. Essentially 'neutral mutations' is a belief rooted in a)evolutionary beliefs from the past, and b) lack of knowledge (We are still learning)

 

[Clete]

You're so laughably ill informed that I'm not willing to engage you beyond this.

I've done exactly NOTHING but ask questions and allowed evolutionists to answer those questions in any fashion they wished and then posted a video where a well establshed career scientist presented undisputed biological science that none of the previous answers come within a mile of explaining and which none of you (including the guy who created the animations in the video, who is clearly a Darwinian evolutionist) have any ability to explain from an evolutionary perspective.

The entire point of this thread has been precisely about me not making the argument! It isn't about my education, my level of expertise, my arguments or anything else related to me at all except that I started the thread and asked questions and presented undisputed science. The whole point has been to let you all defeat yourselves, which worked so beautifully that you, as predicted, are forced to attack me personally.

Talk about laughable.

What you said above disqualifies you from scientific reasoning capabilities.

You're an idiot. If this claim of yours was even half true, you'd not have attacked my intelligence, you'd have refuted the argument. What you are doing is written about in probably hundreds of psychology books. It's a defense mechanism designed to protect your belief system. I can't be right or else your life has been wasted on stupidity. Therefore, I'm stupid, I'm "laughable misinformed", I'm ...fill in the blank... whatever I need to be to allow you to ignore the argument that you clearly understand the veracity of. It is the most overt form of confirmation bias and, it seems to me, qualifies as a form of psychosis.

But you called me a liar. If that's true, what did I lie bout?

To support your point, there should be proof. I don't delete posts unless they are copies, and I almost never do that. So prove I'm a liar.


Otherwise, you yourself are said liar. Go figure

You've repeatedly claimed that I have misrepresented myself as something other than I am. You did this knowing that it was false. That makes you a liar.

By the way, in case you've forgotten, the whole entire thread is all still here for everyone to read.

May I venture to ask where you studied evolution?

I've made an argument, Greg. Can you refute it or not? My education is not relevant to whether the argument I've made is valid. Any third grader is smart enough to understand that complex machines don't just fall into place by accident.

Now it's my turn:
How did the Noah feed the animals on the ark? How did carnivores live without any meat or meat substitutes?

God did it.

It was at that point that you lost all interest in doing anything but showing your true stripes. You went from wanting to shift the focus to me rather than on the arguments presented by bringing up my education to forcing the focus away from the substance of the discussion by dropping all pretense of intellectual honesty and attacking me personally - PRECISELY as I predicted that you would do because I could see it coming.

You then started your lying...

As predicted, you have no formal education in matters you are laughably pretending to be an expert in.


Your act is transparent bud

And it's continued down this path ever since.



So, what exactly did you think, that I couldn't prove you a liar or that I would be unwilling to take the ten minutes it took me to copy and paste the quotes?

Listen, you need to do some really sober self-examination. The underpinnings of your life are in serious trouble, which your emotionalism leads me to suspect that you're aware of on some level.
I inspect homes for a living and if I may put it the vernacular of my profession...

There is evidence of significant differential movement in the foundation of your worldview and it appears to have failed. Further evaluation and repair by a qualified contractor is strongly recommended.

Seriously, there can be only one reason you want to undermine the points that have been made on this thread by attacking me personally on issues that have exactly nothing to do with the substance of the arguments made. There can be only one reason why you hate someone for posting a video that illustrates undisputed hard science as refutation of all the answers that evolutionists themselves presented in their own words. In other words, it wasn't presented in refutation of some characterization of what evolutionists believe. I presented a video of an evolutionist unwittingly refuting what the evolutionists on this thread said themselves.

Your reaction should have been to refute the argument, which could have been done in a number of ways. You could have, for example, attempted to explained how the legs of motor-proteins could have evolved (conceptually). You could have attempted to argue that the legs in the video don't need to have evolved and that I was somehow comparing apples to oranges. You could have even said, "Hey! That's a pretty good point, Clete! I hadn't ever thought of it in those terms before. I don't have any answers for you but I'll do some research into it and see if someone else has a good answer and get back to you."

But no! Instead, your response was to attack me personally. It's called an ad hominem argument. Most people think that an ad hominem happen when you call people names and insult them but that isn't usually the case because, typically, name calling isn't intended as a form of argument. What you've done, however, is a perfect, text-book example of an actual ad hominem argument. You intentionally ignore and deflect away from the actual argument by bringing up irrelevancies like my education and make claims about how I'm "laughably uninformed", as if I'm the one who made that YouTube video or had done anything other than ask questions and allowed evolutionists to answer them.

But, as I said before, this behavior is predictable and understandable. You have little choice. Your life is built on a foundation of sand. When reality (hard biological science) undermines your belief (evolution), your mind knows it and you make the choice to turn off your mind which causes you to panic and retreat into emotionalism and you instinctively turn to any irrelevancy you can find to allow yourself to rationalize away that which is threatening the underpinnings of your entire life.

Everyone who hears these words of mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. —Matthew 7:24-25​

Clete

 

[The Barbarian]

"This neutral theory claims that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are not caused by selection acting on advantageous mutants, but by random fixation of selectively neutral or very nearly neutral mutants through the cumulative effect of sampling drift (due to finite population number) under continued input of new mutations" (Kimura, 1991)

Immediately, this theory caused controversy and gave rise to opposition from many evolutionary biologists. However, the theory also made several strong predictions that could be tested against actual data. Notably, if most of the sequence divergence between species is due to neutral evolution, then one should expect more changes in functionally less important sequences. When Kimura proposed the neutral theory in 1968, only a few protein sequences were available. By the 1980s, however, the much larger amount of DNA sequence data that had accumulated largely validated this prediction. In fact, in light of these new sequence data, Kimura himself published a review of his theory in 1991. In his paper, he pointed out several important observations that had been recently reported, including the following:

In protein sequences, conservative changes—substitutions of amino acids that have similar biochemical properties and are therefore less likely to affect the function of a protein—occur much more frequently than radical changes.
Synonymous base substitutions (i.e., those that do not cause amino acid changes) occur almost always at a much higher rate than nonsynonymous substitutions.
Noncoding sequences, such as introns, evolve at a high rate similar to that of synonymous sites.
Pseudogenes, or dead genes, evolve at a high rate, and this rate is about the same in three-codon positions.

All of these observations have been widely confirmed with the genomic data that are now available (Figure 1). These observations are consistent with the neutral theory but contradict selectionist theory. After all, if most substitutions were adaptive, as argued by selectionist theory, one would expect fewer substitutions in DNA regions where changes have little or no effect on phenotype (e.g., pseudogenes, noncoding sequences, synonymous sites) than in functionally important regions.

It must be stressed that the neutral theory of molecular evolution is not an anti-Darwinian theory. Both the selectionist and neutral theories recognize that natural selection is responsible for the adaptation of organisms to their environment. Both also recognize that most new mutations in functionally important regions are deleterious and that purifying selection quickly removes these deleterious mutations from populations. Thus, these mutations do not contribute—or contribute very little—to sequence divergence between species and to polymorphisms within species. Rather, the dispute between selectionists and neutralists relates only to the relative proportion of neutral and advantageous mutations that contribute to sequence divergence and polymorphism.
Duret, L. (2008) Neutral theory: The null hypothesis of molecular evolution. Nature Education 1(1):218
(Red color is my emphasis)

The issue is simple. Geneticists accept the neutralist theory because the predictions it made have been verified. Strict selectionism cannot explain what we see in nature, but neutralist theory does.

And that's all that matters in science.

 

[Stripe]

The predictions it made have been verified ... [which is] all that matters in science.

Nope.

The most important thing in science is that ideas are thrown out when proven false (or shown unfalsifiable).

The genetic equidistance result has been called, rightly in my opinion, by the biologist Mike Denton as “one of the most astonishing findings of modern science” in his 1986 book “Evolution, A Theory in Crisis”. No one had expected the result or could have guessed it and all would be shocked by it. Nearly all scientists today either don’t know it or have no idea about what it means. In fact, it has been mistakenly interpreted ever since its discovery, which has unfortunately misled the field of molecular evolution and population genetics into the wrong path. It was the reason for the universal molecular clock idea and the junk or neutral DNA idea. The genetic equidistance result was originally discovered by Margoliash in 1963, who states: “It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome c of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish diverges from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein.” Half of a century later with numerous genomes sequenced and compared, we all know that Margoliash is correct in noticing the equidistance result. Indeed, all vertebrate cytochrome c are approximately equally different from the yeast protein, or the bacteria protein for that matter. However, one could have just as easily used common sense to interpret the equidistance result in the following alternative way by changing a few words in the above Margolaish version: “It appears that the number of residue differences between cytochrome c of any two species is mostly conditioned by the species with lower organismal complexity. If this is correct, the cytochrome c of all mammals should be equally different from the cytochrome c of all birds. Since fish has lower complexity than either birds or mammals, the cytochrome c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochrome c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochrome c should be equally different from the yeast protein.” Typical textbooks mention nothing about the original equidistance result and only present the Margoliash interpretation, known as the molecular clock. For example, Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li in their “Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution” (2000) said this: “In their comparative studies of hemoglobin and cytochrome c protein sequences from different species, Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962, 1965) and Margoliash (1963) first noticed that the rates of amino acid replacement were approximately the same among various mammalian lineages.” In other words, these scientists noticed that the equidistance result could be interpreted to mean a universal molecular clock that all mammalian species, or all species for that matter, have approximately the same substitution rate for any given protein. However, another person could have noticed the alternative that the equidistance is a result of lower complexity species having more tolerable sequence variations. This alternative is the maximum genetic diversity (MGD) hypothesis. So, which is right? The universal molecular clock has now been proven invalid, as acknowledged by nearly all in the field. The only other alternative is the more intuitive MGD interpretation, which has yet to encounter a single piece of contradicting data. The molecular clock has led to nonsensical ideas such as neutral or junk DNAs as if an organism is like a junk yard or a dead body, but the MGD theory has led to the exact opposite.

—source​

Holding up successful predictions as "the only thing that matters in science" leads down the path of avoiding falsification, and falsification is the No. 1 component of the scientific approach.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I've done exactly NOTHING but ask questions and allowed evolutionists to answer those questions in any fashion they wished and then posted a video where a well establshed career scientist presented undisputed biological science that none of the previous answers come within a mile of explaining and which none of you (including the guy who created the animations in the video, who is clearly a Darwinian evolutionist) have any ability to explain from an evolutionary perspective.

The entire point of this thread has been precisely about me not making the argument! It isn't about my education, my level of expertise, my arguments or anything else related to me at all except that I started the thread and asked questions and presented undisputed science. The whole point has been to let you all defeat yourselves, which worked so beautifully that you, as predicted, are forced to attack me personally.

Talk about laughable.


You're an idiot. If this claim of yours was even half true, you'd not have attacked my intelligence, you'd have refuted the argument. What you are doing is written about in probably hundreds of psychology books. It's a defense mechanism designed to protect your belief system. I can't be right or else your life has been wasted on stupidity. Therefore, I'm stupid, I'm "laughable misinformed", I'm ...fill in the blank... whatever I need to be to allow you to ignore the argument that you clearly understand the veracity of. It is the most overt form of confirmation bias and, it seems to me, qualifies as a form of psychosis.


You've repeatedly claimed that I have misrepresented myself as something other than I am. You did this knowing that it was false. That makes you a liar.

By the way, in case you've forgotten, the whole entire thread is all still here for everyone to read.







It was at that point that you lost all interest in doing anything but showing your true stripes. You went from wanting to shift the focus to me rather than on the arguments presented by bringing up my education to forcing the focus away from the substance of the discussion by dropping all pretense of intellectual honesty and attacking me personally - PRECISELY as I predicted that you would do because I could see it coming.

You then started your lying...



And it's continued down this path ever since.



So, what exactly did you think, that I couldn't prove you a liar or that I would be unwilling to take the ten minutes it took me to copy and paste the quotes?

Listen, you need to do some really sober self-examination. The underpinnings of your life are in serious trouble, which your emotionalism leads me to suspect that you're aware of on some level.
I inspect homes for a living and if I may put it the vernacular of my profession...

There is evidence of significant differential movement in the foundation of your worldview and it appears to have failed. Further evaluation and repair by a qualified contractor is strongly recommended.

Seriously, there can be only one reason you want to undermine the points that have been made on this thread by attacking me personally on issues that have exactly nothing to do with the substance of the arguments made. There can be only one reason why you hate someone for posting a video that illustrates undisputed hard science as refutation of all the answers that evolutionists themselves presented in their own words. In other words, it wasn't presented in refutation of some characterization of what evolutionists believe. I presented a video of an evolutionist unwittingly refuting what the evolutionists on this thread said themselves.

Your reaction should have been to refute the argument, which could have been done in a number of ways. You could have, for example, attempted to explained how the legs of motor-proteins could have evolved (conceptually). You could have attempted to argue that the legs in the video don't need to have evolved and that I was somehow comparing apples to oranges. You could have even said, "Hey! That's a pretty good point, Clete! I hadn't ever thought of it in those terms before. I don't have any answers for you but I'll do some research into it and see if someone else has a good answer and get back to you."

But no! Instead, your response was to attack me personally. It's called an ad hominem argument. Most people think that an ad hominem happen when you call people names and insult them but that isn't usually the case because, typically, name calling isn't intended as a form of argument. What you've done, however, is a perfect, text-book example of an actual ad hominem argument. You intentionally ignore and deflect away from the actual argument by bringing up irrelevancies like my education and make claims about how I'm "laughably uninformed", as if I'm the one who made that YouTube video or had done anything other than ask questions and allowed evolutionists to answer them.

But, as I said before, this behavior is predictable and understandable. You have little choice. Your life is built on a foundation of sand. When reality (hard biological science) undermines your belief (evolution), your mind knows it and you make the choice to turn off your mind which causes you to panic and retreat into emotionalism and you instinctively turn to any irrelevancy you can find to allow yourself to rationalize away that which is threatening the underpinnings of your entire life.

Everyone who hears these words of mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. —Matthew 7:24-25​

Clete

So.......you are arguing from what grounds exactly ??

 

[Stripe]

So.......you are arguing from what grounds exactly ??

This is how it goes with Darwinists: We are back to debating motives. :yawn:

Wake us up when you're ready to talk about the evidence.

 

[Clete]

So.......you are arguing from what grounds exactly ??

Really?

Here's the gist...

I asked for any evolutionist who cared to so to explain how evolutionists say that legs evolved.

They answered and I asked follow up questions to draw out as much detail as possible on as many different kinds of legs that any of them could think of.

I got basically two answers.

1. Legs from fins.
2. Spiders and crabs from some common ancestor.

Number two doesn't really qualify as an answer but I wasn't trying to pick nits, I just wanted whatever the evolutionists felt were valid and so whatever they came up with was fine with me.

I then probed for more and got basically nothing so I then presented a YouTube video that illustrated just what is happening inside every living cell in existence 24/7/365, toward the end of which is shown a motor protein walking one two legs that not only had feet and ankle joints but were of sufficient length to "step over obstacles".

The lengthy conversations about the evolution of legs that had gone one prior to my presenting the video didn't come within a light year of explaining how the motor protein's legs could possibly have evolved. There is no "fins to legs" equivalent that is even conceptually possible and nothing else that was said touched it either nor has there been anything offered since the presentation of that video that even attempts to postulate a theoretical idea of how such molecular legs might possibly have evolved, not to mention the fact that if those motor proteins don't exist or can't do their job for whatever reason, the whole organism dies.

So, the point is that undisputed discoveries made by the hard sciences refute, without remedy, the atheist's creation myth known as evolution.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Holding up successful predictions as "the only thing that matters in science" leads down the path of avoiding falsification, and falsification is the No. 1 component of the scientific approach.

This is exactly correct!

And it was widely understood and fully accepted before science went down the road of mathematical theories and atheistic creation mythologies.

Predictions are terrific and needed and super valuable but they do not, in and of themselves, prove that a theory is correct. Typically, a prediction that is verified is a prediction that has failed to falsify the theory and a theory that is permitted to survived repeated failed predictions evolves into an unfalsifiable belief system rather than a scientific theory, which is precisely what has occurred with several modern scientific theories, not the least of which is Darwinian Evolution, which has had it's "incremental small changes" having been disproved hundreds and hundreds of times over, including on this very thread!

 

[Stripe]

This is exactly correct!

With the law of averages being what they are, I was bound to get something right sooner or later.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Really?

Here's the gist...

I asked for any evolutionist who cared to so to explain how evolutionists say that legs evolved.

They answered and I asked follow up questions to draw out as much detail as possible on as many different kinds of legs that any of them could think of.

I got basically two answers.

1. Legs from fins.
2. Spiders and crabs from some common ancestor.

Number two doesn't really qualify as an answer but I wasn't trying to pick nits, I just wanted whatever the evolutionists felt were valid and so whatever they came up with was fine with me.

I then probed for more and got basically nothing so I then presented a YouTube video that illustrated just what is happening inside every living cell in existence 24/7/365, toward the end of which is shown a motor protein walking one two legs that not only had feet and ankle joints but were of sufficient length to "step over obstacles".

The lengthy conversations about the evolution of legs that had gone one prior to my presenting the video didn't come within a light year of explaining how the motor protein's legs could possibly have evolved. There is no "fins to legs" equivalent that is even conceptually possible and nothing else that was said touched it either nor has there been anything offered since the presentation of that video that even attempts to postulate a theoretical idea of how such molecular legs might possibly have evolved, not to mention the fact that if those motor proteins don't exist or can't do their job for whatever reason, the whole organism dies.

We (myself included) gave you a play by play of how it went down. What exactly would prove to you that legs came from fins? Anything?

So, the point is that undisputed discoveries made by the hard sciences refute, without remedy, the atheist's creation myth known as evolution.

Clete

Then why does no university in the US (other than Liberty) endorse anything other than the theory of evolution ??

Saying something doesn't make it so

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The predictions it made have been verified ... [which is] all that matters in science.

Nope.

You say so, because (as pointed out before) you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science.

In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would happen under specific conditions; for example, if an apple fell from a tree it would be attracted towards the center of the earth by gravity with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.
A scientific theory which is contradicted by observations and evidence will be rejected. New theories that generate many new predictions can more easily be supported or falsified (see predictive power). Notions that make no testable predictions are usually considered not to be part of science (protoscience or nonescience) until testable predictions can be made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

Red is my emphasis for you, Stipe. And keep in mind the part in blue. We'll be showing you how that applies next post.

The most important thing in science is that ideas are thrown out when proven false (or shown unfalsifiable).

As I said you believe this, because you know virtually nothing of science. Science is primarily inductive, and therefore never “proves” anything. We can only get logical certainty when we know all the rules and thereby apply them to particular things. In science, we can only observe the particulars, and infer the rules. This is far from the first time you've been told this, and you still can't get your head around it, Stipe.

The genetic equidistance result has been called, rightly in my opinion, by the biologist Mike Denton as “one of the most astonishing findings of modern science” in his 1986 book “Evolution, A Theory in Crisis”. No one had expected the result or could have guessed it and all would be shocked by it. Nearly all scientists today either don’t know it or have no idea about what it means. In fact, it has been mistakenly interpreted ever since its discovery, which has unfortunately misled the field of molecular evolution and population genetics into the wrong path. It was the reason for the universal molecular clock idea and the junk or neutral DNA idea.

No.

A heated debate arose when Kimura's theory was published, largely revolving around the relative percentages of alleles that are "neutral" versus "non-neutral" in any given genome. Contrary to the perception of many onlookers, the debate was not about whether natural selection does occur. Kimura argued that molecular evolution is dominated by selectively neutral evolution but at the phenotypic level, changes in characters were probably dominated by natural selection rather than genetic drift.

According to the neutral theory of molecular evolution, the amount of genetic variation within a species should be proportional to the effective population size. Levels of genetic diversity vary much less than census population sizes, giving rise to the "paradox of variation". While high levels of genetic diversity were one of the original arguments in favor of neutral theory, the paradox of variation has been one of the strongest arguments against neutral theory.
Tomoko Ohta emphasized the importance of nearly neutral mutations, in particularly slightly deleterious mutations. The population dynamics of nearly neutral mutations is essentially the same as that of neutral mutations unless the absolute magnitude of the selection coefficient is greater than 1/N, where N is the effective population size with respect to selection. The value of N may therefore affect how many mutations can be treated as neutral and how many as deleterious.

There are a large number of statistical methods for testing whether neutral theory is a good description of evolution (e.g., McDonald-Kreitman test), and many authors claimed detection of selection (Fay et al. 2002, Begun et al. 2007, Shapiro et al. 2007, Hahn 2008, Akey 2009.). However, Nei et al. (2010). have argued that their methods for claiming so depend on many assumptions which are not biologically justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution#cite_note-Zuckerkand62-6

Holding up successful predictions as "the only thing that matters in science" leads down the path of avoiding falsification,

See above. You have no idea what you're talking about. As you see once more, theories that make useful predictions (and have those predictions verified) are are scientific theories. Those that do not, are not. Simple as that.

Now, let's take a look at your "complexity" beliefs. (Next post)

 

[JudgeRightly]

We (myself included) gave you a play by play of how it went down. What exactly would prove to you that legs came from fins? Anything?


Then why does no university in the US (other than Liberty) endorse anything other than the theory of evolution ??

Saying something doesn't make it so

So molecular legs came from fins from a water organism? Um, don't you need the molecular legs in order for the organism to even live and its cells to even function BEFORE it can even reproduce?

Sorry, you're putting the cart (fins) before the horse (molecular legs) here.