A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Stripe]

What is the difference between me giving the fact that all living species use the same system and describing the system as universal? Aren't they just two ways of saying the same thing?

No. Do I have to walk you through the logic? The simple solution is to just give the system you're referring to a name. "The entirety of biological systems" would do. "DNA" would be fine. But "universal system" presupposes exactly what you've proposed as your theory.

Would you allow me to propose special creation 6,000 years ago and cite "the created genome" as my No. 1 line of evidence?

More to the point, is this marginal philosophical point your response to the evidence presented?

If you're not prepared to be careful about how you present your ideas, why should we spend our time parsing them? :idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

You should name exactly who you mean, and be specific about your accusation.

You never specified who, so I cannot say either.

So in your dictionary, a metronome is producing data but not coded information.

Anyone with any sense at all can tell the difference between a ticking clock and coded information.

So the signal you are receiving from me must be a signal from this god too.

No, I do not believe that God is a puppet master for His living creatures. But non-living objects behave in the way that God defined their physics.

The "pulsar signal" has NO coded information whatsoever... again, this is so simple that it's very surprising that you cannot understand this.

Well ok, you could have said so before.

This should be common knowledge for anyone debating creation/evolution.

Let’s just steady the horses, shall we? I’m not claiming to prove anything. I’m not invoking anything regarding abiogenesis.

So, like most atheist evolutionists, you're going to cheat and try to start with life already existing? Got it.

All I have claimed is what I actually claimed: The first important piece of evidence for common descent is the fact that all living species use the same system to store and transmit their genetic code, and the molecular machinery of any one species can read the DNA of any other species.

God created all life... so why would it not have a common coding system?

I would have said that both DNA and the pulsar’s signal contain coded information.

That is just plain ignorance. Please describe the "coding system" used by a pulsar's signal.

In the case of the pulsar the machine you need to read it is a radio telescope, and in the case of DNA the machine you need to read it is a ribosome, or one of the flash new hand-held sequencing machines that they are using to read the genomes of coronaviruses.

Stuart

:juggle:

 

[Right Divider]

Here is what I actually claimed: The first important piece of evidence for common descent is the fact that all living species use the same system to store and transmit their genetic code, and the molecular machinery of any one species can read the DNA of any other species.

Stuart

Once again... you are simply begging the question.... Creationists use the SAME evidence to make a different claim.

This common CODING system (DNA) is a clear and obvious indication of a common Designer.

 

[Stuu]

No. Do I have to walk you through the logic? The simple solution is to just give the system you're referring to a name. "The entirety of biological systems" would do. "DNA" would be fine. But "universal system" presupposes exactly what you've proposed as your theory.

You're stalling.

Would you allow me to propose special creation 6,000 years ago and cite "the created genome" as my No. 1 line of evidence?

You may propose what you wish. The fact that all living things use the same system of storing and transmitting genetic information, and that all living species can read the DNA of any other species is evidence for common descent. You may wish to claim it is equally evidence for other models too. Perhaps it is. But you wanted to talk about evidence. Do you still?

If you're not prepared to be careful about how you present your ideas, why should we spend our time parsing them?

It would be a reassurance to me to know they were being parsed at all.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

You will have noticed that other great apes still exist. They don’t live on farms in the country or in cities. They live in forests. They are perfectly well adapted to their environment, despite the rate that us humans are changing their environments to make them unsuitable. Give a chimpanzee the challenge of learning to tie a shoelace, and they fail regardless of how long they try. Give a human the challenge of brachiating through a forest canopy, and you get the same degree of failure. One task requires intelligence that the chimpanzee doesn’t really need to possess, and the other requires upper body strength and coordination that humans have not needed for well over four million years.

Time isn't the factor. You've got a lot of irons in this fire, so I don't want to hold you up, but I did want to see if there was any meeting of minds. I'm not sure if we accomplished that, but it was my aim.

You might need to be more specific about the problem you are identifying.

This discussion isn't only done on theology forums. Within the larger picture it is good to question when puzzle pieces are missing and don't quite add up.

To test my claim you would need to have seen how the bones and muscles interconnect on a chimp or gorilla. I did say it was a matter of different sizes of the same bones in chimps and humans, but perhaps I should add it is also a matter of different proportions: a chimpanzee’s pelvis is long and relatively narrow, which suits a tree dweller that occasionally has to knuckle-walk on the ground. The human pelvis is much shorter as an adaptation to walking and running on legs held much straighter.

At this point, I'm just trying to show there are differences enough that humans are very far removed. Commonality is a given in the evolution story with everything coming from one cell. I question that assumption. It was an idea without a lot of questioning. It needs questioning instead of being taught this way in schools. If you follow, it is exactly the same problem you have with Genesis: it is posited rather than sustained.

It certainly is a telling phenomenon.

:up: I was a reporter for a small newpaper in Alaska. We did more human interest stories because it was a weekly paper where 'news' had been on television days before we could have had it out (side note, not much interest to thread).

I tend to agree with you there. While modern science is a few hundred years old now, professional science communication is really a recent product of public service broadcasting and also social media these days. It is quite challenging to do it well and to represent the nature of scientific conclusions accurately, while also appealing to the human capacity to follow a ‘story’. Perhaps there should be disclaimers in the end credits of documentaries about the provisional nature of all such science ‘stories’ and their vulnerability to being destroyed by new evidence. Creationists could play their part in this and stop trying to interfere with science education in the United States.

:up: Incidentally, this is one of the better conversations you and I have had. Your academic approach is a better presentation and I commend it.

That’s why the Royal Society has a motto to that effect. Take no one’s word.

To that end, I think National Geographic got a lot of people on 'the same page' which may help movements behind science for concepts, but these also need to be continually investigated (such as how closely we are related to primates above).

Time is just the scaling factor in common descent. Those who deny common descent don’t actually deny common descent, because they are a very small minority of religious enthusiasts who are happy with descent within ‘kinds’ but they place an arbitrary time limit on it based on scriptural calculations by a 17^th Century bishop. Just keep the line of common descent going backwards into much longer time, and you discover that the ‘kinds’ have common ancestry too, just like their descendants.

"God" would be common origin of all descent. We need to be careful to see where we think similarly and where we depart. There is commonality so your anti-theology stance isn't always the right approach. It does seem that genealogy is the limitation on time. For me, it seems there are gaps in the record that could account for larger amounts of time.

Except the last is four times taller than the first, and has only one-quarter of the toes and a different posture.

See here. While it may not 'look' exactly the same, evolution theory is being augmented not to be 'totally different' but to see same stuff, different shape.
My take-away: Pay attention to what is established and just as much to what is being questioned and restructured. It means 'evolution' is evolving where I may be able to be on the same page with science in the future.

Yes, and an interesting phenomenon that is too. But neither onions nor humans are in this category. For that you want deep sea fish like lampreys, that live in an environment that has barely changed for millions of years, and hence has not imposed large selection pressures.

It all speaks of paying attention to what 'can' be established and what isn't as clear.

Stuu: Each species has its own ancestry; onions and humans share a single-celled alga as a common ancestor that lived about 1.2 billion years ago.

You might be amazed how good the evidence for it is. It’s not very far off ‘We know…’.

So see your own statements. However 'close' you are also saying 'not far off.'
Its good. I'd hope you'd be the next guy to write science curriculum at our public schools :up:

A good question. There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis, so what you have instead are different hypotheses based on known situations that could have formed a chemical system from which a simple primordial cell could extract energy. Sulfur-rich hot water around deep sea fumeroles is one such situation you could imagine that populations could adapt to cope with lower sulfur concentrations or different temperatures in order to exploit a niche within that ecosystem. Another possibility is the extraction of energy from acidity gradients that exist naturally in water systems near volcanoes. In our own cells, acidity gradients (proton gradients) are used in the production of ATP, the actual energy transfer molecule of our biochemistry.

There are some here who would not only throw the baby out with the bathwater, but they are prepared to go further and throw away the bath and the house plumbing as well.

So then, when you question Genesis 2:7, do you consider it to be allegory in the manner you are inviting me to consider it? Or is it allegory for me and literal for you?

Stuart

No, not allegory persay. Moses gave very little information: Dirt, breathed, and one being from another, nothing that science would have a hard time with. I suppose I'm simply saying if people can agree on some points, there is no longer a problem and they can move on to points where they do disagree. "God did it" doesn't have to be the point of contest. Rather 'how' is where the disagreement most often lays. Science and theology don't have to (often isn't) to be mutually exclusive. You've stated similar in thread here.

 

[Right Divider]

You may propose what you wish. The fact that all living things use the same system of storing and transmitting genetic information, and that all living species can read the DNA of any other species is evidence for common descent.

Again... you are begging the question.

A common CODING SYSTEM is not, ipso facto, evidence that all life on earth shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

 

[7djengo7]

By your phrase--"the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human"--to which are you referring? To humans or to non-humans?

Neither, obviously. I refer you to my earlier ASCII diagram.

Then, obviously, you're referring to no thing, whatsoever, by your phrase, "the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human". Your use of that phrase is non-referential; it's cognitively meaningless.

Together, humans and non-humans are exhaustive of all there is. Whatever is not human is non-human; whatever is not non-human is human. Humans and non-humans exhaust your options of what can be referred to by your phrase (or by any phrase, or noun, or pronoun).

Sane people do not tenaciously war against logic and the law of the excluded middle as you do. Thank you for the reminder that you're mentally insane, and that you love to use words meaninglessly.

 

[Stuu]

You never specified who, so I cannot say either.

People you cannot name have bias. Not sure what use that information is.

Anyone with any sense at all can tell the difference between a ticking clock and coded information.

So this is the argument from ‘anyone with any sense’. Does that logical fallacy have a specific name?

No, I do not believe that God is a puppet master for His living creatures. But non-living objects behave in the way that God defined their physics.

By all means make whatever assertions you wish about gods. I guess they can be whatever you want them to be.

The "pulsar signal" has NO coded information whatsoever... again, this is so simple that it's very surprising that you cannot understand this.

What happened to the ‘anyone with any sense’ logical fallacy? Replaced with the logical fallacy of personal surprise at incompetence? Two logical fallacies do not a logical argument make.

This should be common knowledge for anyone debating creation/evolution.

Who is debating creation/evolution? I’m just presenting evidence for common descent.

So, like most atheist evolutionists, you're going to cheat and try to start with life already existing? Got it.

Things haven’t yet got so bad that I feel the need to cheat. I haven’t needed to resort to ‘anyone with any sense’ or ‘it’s very surprising that you cannot understand’.

God created all life... so why would it not have a common coding system?

Sure. Why not? You are welcome to rush to early conclusions if you wish. Whatever the best explanation might turn out to be, the commonality and mutual readability of the genomic molecules is evidence for common descent.

That is just plain ignorance. Please describe the "coding system" used by a pulsar's signal.

The pulsar’s coding system is to spin very fast, only emitting radiation from points on the axis about which it is spinning. DNA’s coding system is pairing up molecules by matching according to shape and electrostatic attraction.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Once again... you are simply begging the question.... Creationists use the SAME evidence to make a different claim.

This common CODING system (DNA) is a clear and obvious indication of a common Designer.

I see. Whatever the best explanation for it is, there is no question that the commonality of DNA and the mutual ability to read it across species is evidence that those species share ancestry.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I’m just presenting evidence

Why is it that posers like yourself perpetually pretend as though you cannot see the question I've had in the signature of all my TOL posts for months?

What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

You and I both know very well that you can, and do, see it, and that you are forced to cower from it, because you are an abject poser when it comes to talking about the nature of evidence.

You automatically fail--you totally lose--by saying "I'm presenting evidence for ____", without being able to answer this question. But then, you've demonstrated, time after time--even in this very thread alone--that you're used to being a loser, nay happy with being so, and proud of it.

 

[Stuu]

At this point, I'm just trying to show there are differences enough that humans are very far removed.

These things are relative. Compared to the differences between humans and carrots, humans and chimpanzees are very close.

Commonality is a given in the evolution story with everything coming from one cell. I question that assumption. It was an idea without a lot of questioning. It needs questioning instead of being taught this way in schools. If you follow, it is exactly the same problem you have with Genesis: it is posited rather than sustained.

I don’t think posited or sustained are terms used for describing the nature of scientific conclusions. Do you have a specific objection to a single original cell? There is more safety in saying that all living species have common ancestry in a single-celled species that used DNA, but that cell in turn must be descended from a long line that came from cells that had a simpler genetic system. DNA itself is clearly the result of a long line of evolutionary change.

"God" would be common origin of all descent.

As I mentioned to RD, and in the light of Stripe’s demands to discuss evidence, the god-based explanation for common descent would also need evidence of the god in question. Occam’s razor removes assumptions that do not improve an explanation. So if we add a god to common descent then that god would need to be answering more questions than it caused to be asked.

Think of how many unanswered questions arise once you invoke a god. What is a god? How does it interact with matter? What is the origin of the god, and of its ability to organise biochemistry? Do gods arise by natural selection like the life we know about? I personally think gods do arise by natural selection, but for the present the discussion is simply about the evidence for common descent, regardless of what interpretations people may make of it.

We need to be careful to see where we think similarly and where we depart. There is commonality so your anti-theology stance isn't always the right approach. It does seem that genealogy is the limitation on time. For me, it seems there are gaps in the record that could account for larger amounts of time.

I was thinking of discussing molecular clocks in the context of common descent. Haven’t quite worked that up into a thing yet.

See here.

That’s very interesting. Thanks for the link.

[On Genesis 2:7]No, not allegory persay. Moses gave very little information: Dirt, breathed, and one being from another, nothing that science would have a hard time with. I suppose I'm simply saying if people can agree on some points, there is no longer a problem and they can move on to points where they do disagree. "God did it" doesn't have to be the point of contest. Rather 'how' is where the disagreement most often lays. Science and theology don't have to (often isn't) to be mutually exclusive. You've stated similar in thread here.

That would have to be a point of departure, I think. Not that science respects opinions, but nonetheless my opinion is that science is fundamentally incompatible with religious belief.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Why is it that posers like yourself perpetually pretend as though you cannot see the question I've had in the signature of all my TOL posts for months?

Some of us are so caught up in the promotion of our own egos that we fail to spot the vain attention-seeking attempts of others.

Sorry about that.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

Think of how many unanswered questions

Not unanswerable, as you will see.

arise once you invoke a god. What is a god?

A "god" (little 'g') is an entity that exists only as a concept.

"God" (big 'G') is the Creator of the universe, who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.

How does it interact with matter?

However He wants.

What is the origin of the god,

God always existed.

and [what is the origin] of its ability to organise biochemistry?

His very essence.

Do gods arise by natural selection

No. As stated above, God always existed. There is only one God.

like the life we know about?

Question begging.

You have yet to establish that "life we know about" arises by natural selection.

I personally think gods do arise by natural selection,

That's nice.

but for the present the discussion is simply about the evidence for common descent, regardless of what interpretations people may make of it.

Would you please, for the record, define what you mean by "common descent," and to what extent you think it covers the origin of life?

 

[Right Divider]

People you cannot name have bias. Not sure what use that information is.

You were not discussing anything... you were just repeating the standard atheist fairy story. Not sure what use that information is.

So this is the argument from ‘anyone with any sense’. Does that logical fallacy have a specific name?

It's not a fallacy... or you might have identified it.

Again... a ticking clock is not producing CODED INFORMATION. Anyone with even a tiny brain should be able to understand that.

By all means make whatever assertions you wish about gods. I guess they can be whatever you want them to be.

Look in a mirror... you make assertions that are meaningless.

What happened to the ‘anyone with any sense’ logical fallacy? Replaced with the logical fallacy of personal surprise at incompetence? Two logical fallacies do not a logical argument make.

There is no logical fallacy involved. Please demonstrate the CODED INFORMATION in a ticking clock.

Who is debating creation/evolution? I’m just presenting evidence for common descent.

No, you're not. You are making an assumption and calling that "evidence".

A common coding system is NOT, ipso facto, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

It is just as good for evidence that all life is descended from the MULTIPLE created KINDS that God tells us about in the Bible.

Things haven’t yet got so bad that I feel the need to cheat. I haven’t needed to resort to ‘anyone with any sense’ or ‘it’s very surprising that you cannot understand’.

Who created this COMMON CODING SYSTEM?

Sure. Why not? You are welcome to rush to early conclusions if you wish. Whatever the best explanation might turn out to be, the commonality and mutual readability of the genomic molecules is evidence for common descent.

Begging the question a million times does not support your idea.

The pulsar’s coding system is to spin very fast, only emitting radiation from points on the axis about which it is spinning.

So, AGAIN, you prove that you have no idea what CODING means.

DNA’s coding system is pairing up molecules by matching according to shape and electrostatic attraction.

That is completely irrelevant to ITS ORIGIN.

 

[Right Divider]

I see. Whatever the best explanation for it is, there is no question that the commonality of DNA and the mutual ability to read it across species is evidence that those species share ancestry.

Stuart

Again... this does NOT prove that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

 

[7djengo7]

I’m just presenting evidence

What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

<NO ANSWER>

In other words, you just expect people to take your word for it that what you call "evidence" is evidence. And such stupidity and hypocrisy is what you call "science".

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: Think of how many unanswered questions…

Not unanswerable, as you will see.
[arise once you invoke a god. What is a god? ]
A "god" (little 'g') is an entity that exists only as a concept.
"God" (big 'G') is the Creator of the universe, who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.
[How does it interact with matter? ]
However He wants.
[What is the origin of the god, ]
God always existed.
[and [what is the origin] of its ability to organise biochemistry?]
His very essence.
[Do gods arise by natural selection]
No. As stated above, God always existed. There is only one God.
[like the life we know about?]
Question begging.

…remain unanswered.

You have yet to establish that "life we know about" arises by natural selection.

You’re an intelligent person with an ability to analyse. It is flattering that you expect me to have all the best answers.

Would you please, for the record, define what you mean by "common descent," and to what extent you think it covers the origin of life?

From the Holy Wikipedia:

Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time. All living beings are in fact descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth, according to modern evolutionary biology.

Common descent is an effect of speciation, in which multiple species derive from a single ancestral population. The more recent the ancestral population two species have in common, the more closely are they related. The most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms is the last universal ancestor, which lived about 3.9 billion years ago.

As my objective is to outline evidence for common descent, I will limit myself to DNA-containing forms. It’s reasonable to claim that the first cell with DNA was not the ‘original cell’, as DNA itself must be the result of quite extensive adaptation. So, since life begets life, and the only DNA-containing life that existed billions of years ago was single-celled, therefore common descent takes us back to a single-celled common ancestor, LUCA. This will be a very distant descendant of the first cell, whatever that was.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

Stuu: Think of how many unanswered questions…

…remain unanswered.

Your questions were answered.

Why do you assert they were not?
In what way were the answers which were provided insufficient to answer your questions?

Simply dismissing an argument without reasoning won't work here, Stuart.

You’re an intelligent person with an ability to analyse. It is flattering that you expect me to have all the best answers.

I expect you to be able to put forth the arguments and reasoning of your position. If you can't do that, or refuse to, why are you on here?

From the Holy Wikipedia:

That's nice.

Would you please, for the record, define what you mean by "common descent," and to what extent you think it covers the origin of life?

As my objective is to outline evidence for common descent, I will limit myself to DNA-containing forms. It’s reasonable to claim that the first cell with DNA was not the ‘original cell’, as DNA itself must be the result of quite extensive adaptation. So, since life begets life, and the only DNA-containing life that existed billions of years ago was single-celled, therefore common descent takes us back to a single-celled common ancestor, LUCA. This will be a very distant descendant of the first cell, whatever that was.

Stuart

Is this you saying that you think that "common descent" does not cover the origin of life? Or is this just a really wordy response made in an effort to distract from the question I asked?

Here it is again:

To what extent do you think "common descent" covers the origin of life?

To address what you said:

As my objective is to outline evidence for common descent, I will limit myself to DNA-containing forms.

Would you say that cells that do NOT contain DNA are alive?

It’s reasonable to claim that the first cell with DNA was not the ‘original cell’, as DNA itself must be the result of quite extensive adaptation.

Since "DNA itself" contains the instructions on how a cell reproduces, how, Stuart, do you propose that cells without DNA reproduced, in order to bring about this "quite extensive adaptation"?

So, since life begets life,

A true statement.

So, how, Stuart, can you propose that life comes from non-life? Or do you?

Because, as you said, "life begets life," and the opposite is true, "non-life begets non-life."

Would you also agree that "non-life cannot beget life"?

and the only DNA-containing life that existed billions of years ago was single-celled,

How do you know that it was "single celled"?

I'll overlook the fact that you're begging the question with "billions of years ago," which alone brings into question your statement.

Why couldn't it have been multicellular? Or perhaps a-cellular?

therefore common descent takes us back to a single-celled common ancestor, LUCA. This will be a very distant descendant of the first cell, whatever that was.

So, in essence, what you're saying is that everything you've said is, for the most part, just a guess as to how cells evolved, and certainly not a statement of fact on how life arose from non-life?

 

[Stuu]

Stuu: So this is the argument from ‘anyone with any sense’. Does that logical fallacy have a specific name?

It's not a fallacy... or you might have identified it.

It is called the appeal to common sense fallacy, a kind of appeal to incredulity fallacy.

Again... a ticking clock is not producing CODED INFORMATION. Anyone with even a tiny brain should be able to understand that.

Appeal to brain size fallacy? Yet another form of incredulity fallacy.

Look in a mirror... you make assertions that are meaningless.

Is there a ‘takes one to know one’ fallacy?

Please demonstrate the CODED INFORMATION in a ticking clock.

You are the one who keeps using the term coded information. I have humoured you up to this point, but I reckon it’s time for you to define that term. Otherwise we are all at mortal risk of the equivocation fallacy, or possibly even the fallacy of accent.

You are making an assumption and calling that "evidence".

It is true that all life uses the same system of storing and transmitting genetic information, and that the cells of any species can read the DNA of any other species. That’s not an assumption. That is the evidence. The only interpretation I have made is that it is evidence for common descent, which it clearly is. Given the model of common descent that most creationists put up for the appearance of life on earth post-flood, I would be surprised if you were to object to it. You would have creationists to contend with if you did.

A common coding system is NOT, ipso facto, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor. It is just as good for evidence that all life is descended from the MULTIPLE created KINDS that God tells us about in the Bible.\.

Fair point. That’s why you need further corroborating evidence, which is why I gave you the second piece of evidence, the comparisons between amino acid sequences in the same proteins in different species. That demonstrates that some pairs of species are more closely related than other pairs of species. Together those two pieces of evidence show you there is a tree of life.

Who created this COMMON CODING SYSTEM?

A rare thing, a genuine example of begging the question; using the conclusion of the argument in support of itself in a premise.

Stuu: Whatever the best explanation might turn out to be, the commonality and mutual readability of the genomic molecules is evidence for common descent.

Begging the question a million times does not support your idea.

Sorry, that’s not an example of begging the question. You will even see in the first part of the statement I have taken care not to fall into the trap of assuming a conclusion.

Stuu: The pulsar’s coding system is to spin very fast, only emitting radiation from points on the axis about which it is spinning.

So, AGAIN, you prove that you have no idea what CODING means.

I remember BASIC from school.

10 CLS
20 For T=1 to 100
30 If T=100 then goto 40 else next T
40 Print “Big Pulsar Flash”
50 Goto 10

That’s what a pulsar is doing. Of course that’s not the mechanism by which it does it, but then it’s not the mechanism by which a computer actually simulates it, either.

That is completely irrelevant to ITS ORIGIN.

What relevance does the origin of DNA have to the discussion?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Again... this does NOT prove that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

Indeed. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that all known life shares the same system of genetic storage and replication, and the fact that the machinery of any cell can read the DNA of any other cell is evidence for common ancestry. Science doesn't prove things. It builds up a weight of evidence in favour of one model/explanation then seeks to disprove that model by further evidence. The model stands until disproving evidence is found.

Stuart