Quote
Quote
But no matter. Here comes more "we have no burden of proof"
When you find an example of a scientific theory in any field that has been proven, be sure to post it.
I believe a number of scientists over the years have indeed undertaken to prove the validity of their theories.

However, I expect my Theory of Skunk Funk to fare quite well under your burdenless paradigm. Were I to object too strongly, I my own theory might suffer greatly. So it isn't prudent for me at this time to do so, eh? I'm sure you'd like to trick me into shooting holes in my own theory.

Quote
Just one will do ... you can even pick whatever science suits your fancy (now you get to play avoid the issue and pretend it is something else again -- I'll expect pages and pages of bluster and silly icons).
While there probably are many valid objections to the burdenless paradigm you present, for the sake of the Theory of Skunk Funk, I set them aside for the moment.

Quote
Quote
Now if the trivial amount of (true)mutations that occur during maturation added up to the differences between even separate subspecies... DNA paternity tests would be worthless. DNA criminal evidence would be worthless. DNA analysis of any sort would be almost certainly a waste of time, and most things would die fairly quickly. Yes, cells continue to mutate throughout one's life; but zowie! NOT ON THAT SCALE.
We will ignore the rabbit hole of your ignorance of mutation and how that make separate subspecies, of DNA testing and why we can even do it between species, not just individual humans, you betray your fundamental ignorance of the small amount of real difference between a cell in one organism and a cell in another.

Of course, the fact that we can extend organ transplants to be not just between close relatives, but between species, would not have any relation to how closely related those species are would it? How similar the cell structure in the different organisms are.
You raise a serious and grave objection to my arguments, and it may appear unsurmountable. (See, I can mimic Darwin just a little)

Let us see how well your objection holds up in some specific cases. Steel plates are frequently transplanted, and Jarvik hearts have met with success as well. As both of these contain minerals, it is fair to consider them descendents of rocks; just as evolutionism considers mankind to be descended from rocks.

But RAZD argues that the capacity to successfully transplant an organ is contingent upon the closeness of the relationship. The relationship of man to the Jarvic heart and the steel plates is about as distant as it gets, going back to the (imagined) common ancestor of the rocks that evolved into man and the rocks that evolved into steel plates and Jarvik hearts.

Quote
Splicing plants is an old way of combining two different forms that has proven quite successful in spite of the large difference, apparently, between on type of plant and another.
Fungus will grow on a tree too. Mould will grow on a refridgerator. Just how closely are these things related?

There are bacteria growing in my digestive system. Does this indicate kinship?

Quote
Of course the simple fact is that you missed the point that the comparison is not about one becoming the other, but how similar they are.
I most certainly did not.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson