Re: Being Objective


Glenn wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
Glenn wrote:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=947794&dopt=Abstract
"It is concluded that the ancient fibrinogen molecule was
composed
of
all identical chains and that its differentiation into three
chain
types occurred long before the divergence of lampreys and higher
vertebrates."



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16481395&dopt=Citation
"The paralog distribution suggests that the eukaryotic
cenancestor
possessed nearly all kinesin families."



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11324016&dopt=Abstract
"Therefore, the origin of Hox genes and ParaHox genes occurred
prior
to the evolutionary split between the Cnidaria and the Bilateria
and
predated the evolution of the anterior-posterior axis of
bilaterian
animals."

Have these assumptions changed?

Which assumptions do you have in mind?

The ones above, dude.

I do not think that the assumptions on which these conclusions
were
based have changed: that methods used in determining which
manuscripts
were copied (with modifications) from the same (lost) originals
can
be
used to determine which species are descended (with modifications)
from the same (no longer extant) common ancestors, and that the
consistent nested hierarchy of (in this case) biochemical
homologies
support common descent of all animals.

The conclusions were assumptions, dude. Is there some foundational
problem with evolutionists answering a question directly?

"It is concluded that," "... suggests that...," and "Therefore..."
are
not the sort of verbal tags normally associated with assumptions.
If,
e.g. the authors of the second article had found that some kinesin
families were found only in, e.g. plants, and others only in animals
and fungi, and still others only in certain protists, they would
inferred that the last common ancestor of eukaryotes probably did
not
possess all the modern kinesin families (although, presumably, they
would have *assumed* that it possessed proteins ancestral to those
families).

Common ancestry is assumed in all three papers, but the specific
details of evolutionary history with which the papers deal are not
assumed; they are inferred from and supported by evidence (given the
assumption of common descent). Note that common descent is not
"assumed" arbitrarily, anymore than physicists "assume" that atoms
exist rather than reexamine that conclusion every time they do a
new
experiment concerning the structure of matter.

Is there some foundational problem associated with creationists
and/or
yourself, that you expect a direct answer to a question founded on
grossly mistaken premises?

My "grossly mistaken" premise, of course, being that I assumed that
you would understand the question as being directed toward specific
claims, right? Steven, honestly, I can't see any significant
difference between your logic and that of many other lunatics here. I
didn't question common ancestry in the question, and in case you don't
realize, inferences are assumptions.


I certainly didn't realize that. I thought that inferences were
conclusions drawn from evidence and reasoning, whereas assumptions were
simply statements taken to be true without examination. Now the same
statement could be inferred from the evidence in one argument, and
later used as an assumption in another. Which makes it fair for Steven
to ask which assumptions you are referring to.


The specific details I asked
about are assumptions. If you preferred to use "conclusions" or
"inferences", then you could have as easily, and *should have*,
responded to what you admit recognizing, "specific details". There is
no need to go into quantum theory, or include "atoms" in your answer.
If you wish to talk to yourself, the proper place would be by
yourself.


He wasn't talking to himself. He was answering your question. If you
don't like or understand the answer, perhaps it is you who should go
elsewhere.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... Evidence is in the mind of the beholder. ... years ago, and left only a very sparse fossil record, does not equate with controversy about evolution, although the anti-science camp will grasp at any straw to make it seem so. ... Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to ... common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Human evolutionary origins for Zorg
    ... (I have mostly used "common ancestry" ... sometimes you seem to agree with evolution, ... RESTATEMENT of THE "Phylogenetic Tree" ... animals by common ancestry is so simple and requires so few ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey ... common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- ... -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Being Objective
    ... all identical chains and that its differentiation into three ... predated the evolution of the anterior-posterior axis of ... they are inferred from and supported by evidence (given ... Assumptions require no evidence, no reasoning. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Being Objective
    ... all identical chains and that its differentiation into three ... predated the evolution of the anterior-posterior axis of ... they are inferred from and supported by evidence (given ... Assumptions require no evidence, no reasoning. ...
    (talk.origins)