Jump to content
one.opinion

Is the vitamin C-making pseudogene evidence of shared ancestry?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s certainly the most likely outcome, but if the existing paradigm is to be challenged, it will take scientific evidence to do so. Hypothesis will not have much effect on its own.

Unbelievable.  You're making a Claim based on Pure Speculation then asking the challengers to Scientifically Invalidate the speculation via Experiment!!   :groan:

This is tantamount to claiming that: According to the "Accepted Interpretation", Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes are responsible for creating dark matter by throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the Crab Nebula...THEN asking us to DISPROVE it OR...Therefore your claim is TRUE!! :huh:

It's the Acme of Foolishness to even consider... much less attempt, to disprove complete Arguments from Ignorance Fallacies.

Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? 

ps.  You can't form a VIABLE Scientific Hypothesis regarding your claim.  Why?  Well you don't have a VIABLE "Independent Variable"; Ergo...it's: Untestable!! Unfalsifiable!!! It's a "Just-So" Story!!!!

 

Quote

As you say, a single experiment would not shake the foundations of evolutionary thought

'evolution' doesn't and NEVER EXISTED !!!  for goodness sakes.

 

Quote

but it would be a step towards being taken more seriously by the scientific establishment.

There is no "Scientific Establishment"!!!  my word.

All you have are Pseudo-Science Priests from the 'Religions': astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics.
Crocheting is more "Scientific" than ALL these Clowns... "COMBINED!!"
Why?? Well neither of the masqueraders above can follow "The Scientific Method"... SCIENCE.

The End.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

You're making a Claim based on Pure Speculation then asking the challengers to Scientifically Invalidate the speculation via Experiment!! 

I know you love disagreeing with things, but it would be advisable to understand exactly what you are disagreeing with. I'll bullet-point this to make it easier.

1. There is an established paradigm to explain things like the GULOP pseudogene. I'm not saying that the paradigm is infallible and I'm not saying that everyone else should believe it just because I do and because experts in relevant fields do. But whether you accept it or not, the established paradigm exists.

2. Tristen has presented a plausible explanation that is contrary to the established paradigm.

3. The existence of a plausible alternative to the established paradigm is insufficient to alter the established paradigm.

4. Experimental pursuit of Tristen's plausible explanation would be interesting and potentially useful to those that wish to alter or challenge the established paradigm.

Now, is there anything in these points you disagree with, or are you just disagreeing because it is your hobby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I know you love disagreeing with things, but it would be advisable to understand exactly what you are disagreeing with. I'll bullet-point this to make it easier.

This is not a Disagreeing/Agreeing "Subjective" subject.   You're 'allegedly' making a Scientific Claim... "Objective".  So your claim is either Validated by Experiment or it's NOT.

The End.

 

Quote

There is an established paradigm to explain things like the GULOP pseudogene. I'm not saying that the paradigm is infallible and I'm not saying that everyone else should believe it just because I do and because experts in relevant fields do. But whether you accept it or not, the established paradigm exists.

"Established Paradigms" are not a part of The Scientific Method, they're a part of Propaganda States; Ergo...you're in the WRONG Forum.

Along the same line of thought, "Acceptance" is for: Propaganda State's, Political 'science', 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions.  It has no place and is Non-Sequitur to The Scientific Method.

 

Quote

 

2.  Tristen has presented a plausible explanation that is contrary to the established paradigm.

3. The existence of a plausible alternative to the established paradigm is insufficient to alter the established paradigm.

4. Experimental pursuit of Tristen's plausible explanation would be interesting and potentially useful to those that wish to alter or challenge the established paradigm.

Now, is there anything in these points you disagree with, or are you just disagreeing because it is your hobby?

 

I've simply Invalidated your PARROTED Fairytale Stories.

You have No Experimental Evidence supporting your "established paradigm" (aka: "Just-So" Stories), so Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories).  All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away.

Again...

Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? 

  

regards

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

This is not a Disagreeing/Agreeing "Subjective" subject.   You're 'allegedly' making a Scientific Claim... "Objective".  So your claim is either Validated by Experiment or it's NOT.

The End.

 

"Established Paradigms" are not a part of The Scientific Method, they're a part of Propaganda States; Ergo...you're in the WRONG Forum.

Along the same line of thought, "Acceptance" is for: Propaganda State's, Political 'science', 2nd Grade Story Time, and Religions.  It has no place and is Non-Sequitur to The Scientific Method.

 

I've simply Invalidated your PARROTED Fairytale Stories.

You have No Experimental Evidence supporting your "established paradigm" (aka: "Just-So" Stories), so Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories).  All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away.

Again...

Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? 

  

regards

So.... To the specific list I asked you about:

1. Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

2. Are you saying that Tristen did NOT offer a plausible explanation?

3. Are you saying that his plausible explanation IS sufficient to alter the established paradigm (if it exists)?

4. Are you saying that experimentation on his plausible explanation would NOT be interesting, or NOT useful to those wishing to challenge the established paradigm (if it exists)?

Your response lends support to my hypothesis that you are arguing more from habitual behavior than from actual disagreement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

So.... To the specific list I asked you about:

1. Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

2. Are you saying that Tristen did NOT offer a plausible explanation?

3. Are you saying that his plausible explanation IS sufficient to alter the established paradigm (if it exists)?

4. Are you saying that experimentation on his plausible explanation would NOT be interesting, or NOT useful to those wishing to challenge the established paradigm (if it exists)?

:huh: 

Perhaps if you didn't "Quote" my Entire Post...and not speak to a single rebuttal smh, would prevent you from 'Whistl'n Past the Graveyard' and continue asking inane questions on a "Debunked" topic. 

 

Quote

Your response lends support to my hypothesis that you are arguing more from habitual behavior than from actual disagreement.

Restocking Fees are more legitimate than this ^^^^^, smh.

 

So again (Just Quote these next Two and Respond Directly.  K?)...

1.  You have No Experimental Evidence supporting your "established paradigms" (aka: "Just-So" Stories), so Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories).  All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away.

Again...

2.  Do you find it 'Scientific' or 'Logical' to imagine things THEN have other people attempt to disprove your imaginings before you give evidence of your imaginings...? 

Which part of these is particularly confusing??

 

regards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Which part of these is particularly confusing??

What I find confusing is your refusal to address direct questions, but continue to argue with comments made pages previously in the post. Just for fun, let's try again.

1. Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

2. Are you saying that Tristen did NOT offer a plausible explanation?

3. Are you saying that his plausible explanation IS sufficient to alter the established paradigm (if it exists)?

4. Are you saying that experimentation on his plausible explanation would NOT be interesting, or NOT useful to those wishing to challenge the established paradigm (if it exists)?

You objected to this a few hours ago, and I'm just trying to determine the source of your objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

What I find confusing is your refusal to address direct questions, but continue to argue with comments made pages previously in the post. Just for fun, let's try again.

R-Ya-Kiddin Me?  This is tantamount to Pol Pot charging the Dalai Lama with Genocide!!  

You've WHOLESALE DODGED every single rebuttal! 

I even asked you EXPLICITLY to Quote My 2 Reasons and speak to them directly.  What did you do?  SKIPPED THEM :rolleyes:

 

Quote

1. Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail.

 

Quote

2. Are you saying that Tristen did NOT offer a plausible explanation?

Again, Tristen is not required to post Experimental Evidence or an offer 'explanation' invalidating your Non-Experimental Evidence (aka: "Just-So" Stories) because your claims (aka: Fairytales) aren't VALIDATED to begin with.  All he needs to do is snicker, roll his eyes, and walk away.

 

Quote

3. Are you saying that his plausible explanation IS sufficient to alter the established paradigm (if it exists)?

Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail.

 

Quote

4. Are you saying that experimentation on his plausible explanation would NOT be interesting, or NOT useful to those wishing to challenge the established paradigm (if it exists)?

Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail.

You can't form a VIABLE Scientific Hypothesis regarding your claim (or Tristen's claims).  Why?  Well, there is no VIABLE "Independent Variable"; Ergo...it's: Untestable!! Unfalsifiable!!! It's a "Just-So" Story!!!!

 

Quote

You objected to this a few hours ago, and I'm just trying to determine the source of your objection.

I "objected" to your Fairytale Claims then I proceeded to Illustrate "WHY" they are Fairytale Claims. 

The 'Source' of the objection is "Me".  The Rationale is: Fairytale Claims masquerading as Science.  simple.

The End.

 

regards

  • Please stop fighting!  Thanks!  :) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
Quote

1. Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

Again, The "Established Paradigm" is a demonstrable Fairytale, which I Illustrated in detail.

I did not ask if you agreed with the established paradigm, I asked if you thought it existed. So I'm going to try a multiple choice question.

Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

A) yes

B) no

Why would I have any desire to engage in further details of the conversation if you won't even address simple yes or no questions without resorting to theatrics?

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I did not ask if you agreed with the established paradigm, I asked if you thought it existed. So I'm going to try a multiple choice question.

Are you saying that an established paradigm does not exist?

A) yes

B) no

Why would I have any desire to engage in further details of the conversation if you won't even address simple yes or no questions without resorting to theatrics?

:rolleyes:

 

Thanks for posting, couldn't have Illustrated the Situation without'cha.  thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That’s certainly the most likely outcome, but if the existing paradigm is to be challenged, it will take scientific evidence to do so. Hypothesis will not have much effect on its own.

AiG is often criticized for its lack of its experimental work, and this would be an opportunity to do so. I’m sure the funds could be made available to test something like this.

DI is Discovery Institute, that I mentioned earlier. It’s a US-based research group that works on supporting Intelligent Design. They could also “gain traction” with experiments that could show a unitary pseudogene with activity, as their world view would suggest.

As you say, a single experiment would not shake the foundations of evolutionary thought, but it would be a step towards being taken more seriously by the scientific establishment.

That’s certainly the most likely outcome, but if the existing paradigm is to be challenged, it will take scientific evidence to do so. Hypothesis will not have much effect on its own.”

As Enoch has so delicately pointed out, you appear to be trying to position your paradigm as somehow automatically superior – such that the onus is upon conflicting positions to “challenge” it. One way to challenge an existing story is to provide an alternative story. I have provided an alternative interpretation of the evidence based in fact and logic, and in-so-doing, have demonstrated that your assumed position of superiority has no basis in logic.

I understand that your paradigm, and the interpretations stemming from that paradigm, are more popular – but that popularity is not based on superior science or logic. It is based in faith presupposition. And so there is no objective reason for me to assume the position of challenger. Both stories address the available facts through the lens of faith. Both stories are historical, and therefore empirically unfalsifiable. So there is no rational basis for me to assume a position of inferiority in the discussion.

I am not naive enough to presume I can alter anyone's faith paradigm based on demonstrating an alternate path of reasoning. You already identify as Christian. But you have also been convinced that the secular story is so unequivocal, that you need to find a way to fit these ideas into the Bible. My general goal in our discussions is to demonstrate to you that there is no rational, or scientific, obligation on a Christian (or anyone) to adhere to these secular ideas. They have as much a foundation of faith as my creationist beliefs. The preferred secular story is both built, and justified, by the exact same processes of logic, as Biblical creationism (albeit from a different faith perspective). Biblical creationism is only inferior to secular materialism in terms of popularity, but not in terms of logic or legitimate science.

 

Regarding AiG & DI

I am vaguely familiar with AiG and had no idea who DI was until you told me. I am not familiar with their access to resources or their capacity to fund research. I'm not sure why either would be compelled to address the specific issue of a function for GULOP; given that the outcome would not obligate any change to existing arguments. Science is expensive; especially molecular science. If I had the money to investigate creationist claims, there would be much higher priorities than an obscure argument over an obscure pseudogene.

 

a single experiment would not shake the foundations of evolutionary thought, but it would be a step towards being taken more seriously by the scientific establishment

I, respectfully, find this naive. Creationists commonly conduct research in all disciplines of science. However, it is well known (and occasionally even stated by publishers) that papers with creationist implications are unlikely to be considered for publication. So creationists either have to leave creationist implications out of their papers, or only submit to the creationist resources. Any creationist research with serious implications is rabidly ridiculed and attacked by the secular “establishment”.

These are conflicts of faith, not science. And the established faith paradigm will be defended with fervent religious zeal. Even in our discussions, you, a Christian, have expressed a stereotype of creationists being dishonest and untrustworthy. So the adhomenim propaganda works. And so I think it naive in such a volatile climate, to suggest that finding a function for GULOP would result in creationists “being taken more seriously” by anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×