That's right. All theories work that way, evolution is just untestable because the time frames are too large for the assumption to be accurately tested.
The molecular sequence data is before us. The implications of common descent with respect to the data are laid out explicitly in the link I provided. No time machines needed.
Instead, we get assumptions based on very very short time-frames that are then extrapolated. Nothing 'scientific' about that.
Uh, yeah. Again, there's nothing to do with "time frames". Except of course as they may lead to deductions from common descent. For instance birds share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles, or than with any other animal. This particular component of the larger common descent theory leads to DEDUCTIONS (not "extrapolations") about what CURRENT molecular sequence data should look like, and prohibits certain patterns. But it doesn't require that we have a time machine. It's entirely deductions from the theory and CURRENT data that is relevant.
Again, correct on what facts are. And since no *fact* uniquely supports evolution, it is merely which interpretation you prefer.
Unrestrained intellectual relativism rejected.
I also provided a link which comes to the exact *opposite* conclusion on the same facts. Therefore, these 'facts' do not uniquely support evolution.
So if I provide a link to a holocaust revisionism site then "therefore" all the facts normally considered to uniquely support the holocaust lose all such significance? All I need to do is point the mere existence of a PUTATIVE contradictory interpretation, which is all you did? And even if my contradictory interpretation is comprehensively refuted, as yours was, and even I absolutely refuse to engage that refutation, as you did, I can still claim that there are no facts uniquely supporting the holocaust?
Gee, that's easy.
That's my point. There are no *facts* that uniquely support evolution. Stop pretending that your interpretation is the only possibility and you will get more respect.
I don't pretend that for a minute. Nor does the site I linked, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". It explicitly recognizes that other interpretations are possible, but different interpretations have different implications as to what the facts should (or should not) look like.
Of course both I, and the author of that webpage, reject your radical intellectual relativism.
And yes I did ask for a *fact*. See post #292. You are Stultis, right? That post was to Stultis, right?
#292 was not in this chain of replies. Check for yourself. This chain started with you asking for evidence that uniquely supports evolution, me citing the "29+ Evidences," and etc.
Besides, tying ANY scientific theory to just ONE fact is too silly. Any theory depending on ONE fact would be incredibly weak, or so narrow as to be utterly useless
Ah, now that I look at it: In #292 you were asking a different question then that under discussion between us now. You were asking not for a fact that SUPPORTED evolution but for one that FALSIFIED young earth creationism. That makes more sense, actually. A theory might conceivably be falsified by a single fact (although multiple patterns of falsifying facts is much better).
That particular exchange petered out however, terminating in my #312. Go there and click back through the "To" links to confirm this for yourself.
If you become confused again and are unable to follow one of your own conversations, just let me know. I'll be happy to help.
Now tell me which *fact* uniquely supports evolution or admit that you have none.
The facts of the molecular sequence data, e.g. DNA sequences, compared among various organisms, uniquely support evolution (common descent). There is no other extant proposal that comes close to accounting for the facts as well, on a many points, and in as much detail, as does common descent. In addition -- in fact even more importantly -- there are innumerable opportunities for this data to have CONCLUSIVELY FALSIFIED common descent, and yet is has failed to do so.
Of course "uniquely supports" must be qualified with the proviso that someone in the future may come up with a theory that explains the facts even better than common descent. This possibility is part of the very nature of science, and always active for all scientific proposals. But as yet no one has.
Fine, discuss why molecular sequence data uniquely supports common descent.
I responded with a link that laid out explicitly why the molecular sequence data did not uniquely support common descent.
Your statement that birds 'share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles' is itself a deduction, not a fact. You cannot tell the difference.
Go ahead, provide some *facts* or tell me how my link was refuted. Just claiming it is so doesn't make it so.
But I see that you acknowledge that there are no such facts. That's good, because that is true. And whether you and the author of the page reject my position is just as relevant to me as it is that the author of my link and I reject your position is relevant to you. You gettin the idea here?
OK, so now you have moved from claiming that I didn't ask for a fact to that I didn't ask for a fact 'in this chain of posts'. The request was to you, I did make it, but you make some lame excuse. Good job.
And it wasn't me that chose the subject. It was you. If you have a better one. Let's hear it.
Again, the molecular sequence data doesn't uniquely support common descent. A common designer works just as well as an explanation.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that common descent could have been falsified through the molecular sequence data. There are plenty of areas where genomes don't match well. Guess what. The claim then becomes that these areas 'evolved separately'.
The common descent data is only used where it supposedly agrees. When it doesn't agree, it is ignored as having evolved after the reputed split.
See how easy it was to make the theory unfalsifiable?