Replies

we really care professor, forgive me for drawing you out, thats so i could take time to be more helpful now..you know logic
:
the 29+arguments error in 4.1-2 is hidden assumption (p & p&q>r & p>r .: r, invalid if 3rd premiss false). stated simply p='only heredity is observed to copy full proteins', q='only observed mechanisms can copy full proteins', r=common descent..

they assume q that design can't copy full proteins needed, but evidence is !q that it can..human design has copied many long proteins which evos regard as sufficient proof human design will someday copy the whole cell

SINCE design can copy full proteins needed (even if not observed to yet), common descent dnf (doesnt follow)..admit please
:
your error, by contrast, was affirming the consequent (q & p>q .: p, invalid). p = common descent, q = 'a reconstructible tree of sim/diff dna exists'..can convert to hidden assumption (q & p>q & !p>!q .: p, invalid if 3rd premiss false)..

you said p>q: the DNA sequences were found experimentally to be consistent with a common ancestor.
you said q: I guarantee the DNA sequences, with no assumptions.., will allow the biologist reconstruct the evolutionary tree. (sic)
you didn't say !p>!q which would be: if not all have common descent, the tree cannot exist
!p>!q is false because: if not all have common descent, design can produce a similar tree, proven above

THUS common descent dnf..say maybe you missed 306 earlier??
:
your other post was beautiful science, incisive, compellingly put, & yes fun, except this invalid assumption vision thing..please lets answer why you think design is not a valid mechanism
:
..i have 2 mechanisms for copying comments: cut&paste or retype..comment mutations can either arise by edit after cut&paste, or transcript error/edit during retype

if i copy and mutate comments many times, you can lay out a tree of sim/diff comments based on fewer/more mutations..it proves 00 about which means i used at any unobserved time even if all the time you observed me i used cut&paste..

in a nutshell you say the tree is evolutionary like all evolutionary trees (circular argument, p>p .: p, invalid, details left as exercise to reader)..in re ff: 2 pet 3