Joshua and Cornelius get to know each other

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Swamidass

To be clear, this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent. What is Universal Common Descent? - #39 by Swamidass

@Cornelius_Hunter

Because it is a claim about God. That makes it religious.

@Swamidass

Here, there is no claim about God. It is a claim about known scientific models and data. At no point in my science do I make any claims about God.

I do make some claims about God. That He is uniquely revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And through him all things were created that have been created.

So try again Cornelius. At the moment, it seems like a totally incoherent charge. Do you really still think it is my Christian religion and belief in creation that drives my science and acceptance of evolution? How exactly does that make your case?

@Cornelius_Hunter

Actually it is not incoherent. The claim that AS patterns are particularly problematic for creationism is a religious claim.

I did not claim this.

I am an evolutionary creationist which is a type of creationist. And pseudo exons are not a problem in that model. Also, I grant that God can do whatever he wants, even create de novo beasts with pseudo-exons. Therefore, I did not in anyway say or think that “AS patterns are problematic for creationism.”

Rather, I said that AS patterns are problematic for the scientific models that we know of that do not include common descent.

@Cornelius_Hunter

Or if this helps you, the claim is this: “There is not likely a non-CD way that God would create X.” Or, “God likely would create X only via CD”. Again, this is a religious claim.

So I’m not sure what you are confused about. I could expand it if you like:

1. Pseudo exons are observed in alternate spliced genes.
2. God would not likely create pseudo exons (in a non common descent way such as creationism)
3. Therefore pseudo exons are a problem for creationism.

Step 2 is a religious claim. Make sense?

No it does not, because I did not make or endorse that argument.

I am not arguing against creationism. I am a creationist. It would be silly for me to argue against creation. And that is not what is happening here.

Also, when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence. God can absolutely create things in a non-CD way. But we have no known scientific model for this. And in science this is all we consider: scientific models and there are no models that explain the data other than CD.

I think you know these distinctions. It should be pretty clear from my writing. I’m left wondering why you misrepresent me. There is some real incoherence to your position here, or a willful ignorance of other people’s points of view.

Of course this seems to be a pattern with you…