Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Genetic Bottleneck

tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 9:35:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species.

Do you have a reference for that? I never heard that before.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 10:02:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:35:40 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species.

Do you have a reference for that? I never heard that before.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.animalcontrol.com.au...

Different species of rabbits were introduced into Australia.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

The Bible doesn't claim one species of rabbit, btw. I doesn't say. But it does present the ecosystem as STARTING with vast genetic diversity from which to select, which makes technical sense.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 12:04:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 10:02:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:35:40 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species.

Do you have a reference for that? I never heard that before.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.animalcontrol.com.au...

Different species of rabbits were introduced into Australia.

Nothing I read in both those links suggests that any of the rabbits descended from any other population other than the original ~20.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 12:31:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 12:04:36 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 10:02:49 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:35:40 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species.

Do you have a reference for that? I never heard that before.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.animalcontrol.com.au...

Different species of rabbits were introduced into Australia.

Nothing I read in both those links suggests that any of the rabbits descended from any other population other than the original ~20.

a). There were already thousands of domesticated rabbits that were brought in, before the 20 were released. These rabbits were also released.

b). They were still a hybrid, as the person in question, bought grey rabbits and domesticated rabbits, i.e. the same types of rabbits that were already around in the thousands.

These two make it vastly different from what is proposed in the bible.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 12:32:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

One specimen, as in one organism? No. A form is not the same as an organism, and therefore one singular form is not the same as one singular organism.

Humans, for example, all share similar forms. Yet there are 6 billion humans.

The Bible doesn't claim one species of rabbit, btw. I doesn't say. But it does present the ecosystem as STARTING with vast genetic diversity from which to select, which makes technical sense.

If you are going to claim that all rabbits are the same "kind", as creationists like to say, then it wouldnt matter if the male was a different species than the female. Having one male rabbit of one species, and another female rabbit of another species, doesnt solve the problem.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:59:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

The Bible says kind of it's own kinds. Not different species of rabbits. A rabbit is a rabbit. So the rabbits weren't same species on noah's ark.

I don't think it was a world event but it is not as easily dismissed by dna like this.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 12:32:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

One specimen, as in one organism? No. A form is not the same as an organism, and therefore one singular form is not the same as one singular organism.

Humans, for example, all share similar forms. Yet there are 6 billion humans.

The Bible doesn't claim one species of rabbit, btw. I doesn't say. But it does present the ecosystem as STARTING with vast genetic diversity from which to select, which makes technical sense.

If you are going to claim that all rabbits are the same "kind", as creationists like to say, then it wouldnt matter if the male was a different species than the female. Having one male rabbit of one species, and another female rabbit of another species, doesnt solve the problem.

This would go to a deeper question of whether rabbits were a clean or unclean animal. Then you would have a population of 7 diverse rabbits.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 12:32:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

One specimen, as in one organism? No. A form is not the same as an organism, and therefore one singular form is not the same as one singular organism.

Humans, for example, all share similar forms. Yet there are 6 billion humans.


Yeah, I don't think that's what Darwin meant, but he's not around to ask. Regardless, it's debating a made-up concept anyway. There is no evidence for one or several original forms of any definition, it's pure supposition.

The Bible doesn't claim one species of rabbit, btw. I doesn't say. But it does present the ecosystem as STARTING with vast genetic diversity from which to select, which makes technical sense.

If you are going to claim that all rabbits are the same "kind", as creationists like to say,

I don't personally like to say that. I think 'kind' was meant pretty generically, just as Darwin meant 'species' quite generically. I read the text as more like "He made all the varieties of animals", not as some kind of technical statement.

The concept of statistically bounded variation comes from observation, not the Bible. Genetics is readily observable and testable, while Darwinian evolution remains unconfirmed speculation.
This space for rent.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 1:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

It's a good question, I'd say that it wouldn't be obvious but it would be testable.
Bottleneck effect is usually detected through calculating heterozigosity and allele number for a set of loci. If these measures either decline with time or are significantly inferior to those of another population of the same species, we infer a bottleneck in the past.

If all life went through it, a comparison between populations would be useless.
That would leave the study of heterozigosity itself. It can be demonstrated mathematically that average het. for a neutral locus is 4Nv/(4Nv+1) assuming that drift and mutation are at balance. N is the effective population size and v the rate of mutation per locus per generation.

One would have to calculate heterozigosity in a lot of populations of different species and confront it with the expected value. However that would be confused by two factors:
the formula is robust (so there doesn't have to be a precise balance between drift and mutation for it to work) but to be precise one should calculate N, v and the effect of genetic drift for every population. It is the work of years just for one.
Secondly, heterozigosity after a bottleneck starts decreasing, then reaches a plateau and then grows again. The speed of this process is measured in generations and is dependent on population growth (and that's the reason why rabbits in Australia don't show the effects of a genetic bottleneck that's pretty recent while cheetahs are still showing the signs of something that happened at the end of the last ice age).

So I'd say that it would be very difficult but it could be done.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 11:44:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 12:32:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

One specimen, as in one organism? No. A form is not the same as an organism, and therefore one singular form is not the same as one singular organism.

Humans, for example, all share similar forms. Yet there are 6 billion humans.


Yeah, I don't think that's what Darwin meant, but he's not around to ask.

Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

Regardless, it's debating a made-up concept anyway. There is no evidence for one or several original forms of any definition, it's pure supposition.

Depends on what you mean by "Form". There are specific characteristics that are shared only by a specific group of organisms, that helps and helped us categorize animals into different groups. Its why we found out that Whales are mammals and not fish.

The Bible doesn't claim one species of rabbit, btw. I doesn't say. But it does present the ecosystem as STARTING with vast genetic diversity from which to select, which makes technical sense.

If you are going to claim that all rabbits are the same "kind", as creationists like to say,

I don't personally like to say that. I think 'kind' was meant pretty generically, just as Darwin meant 'species' quite generically. I read the text as more like "He made all the varieties of animals", not as some kind of technical statement.

The concept of statistically bounded variation comes from observation, not the Bible. Genetics is readily observable and testable, while Darwinian evolution remains unconfirmed speculation.

What do you mean by "Statistically bounded variation", or "Darwinian evolution"? With regards to common ancestry, this is something that is confirmed via genetics, much the same way that paternity tests "Confirm" whether you are the father of a child.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 9:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Yes it would.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/21/2014 11:44:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 12:32:34 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 11:46:16 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:32:38 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:22:25 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 5/20/2014 9:20:13 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Were not talking about a simple bottleneck though. 7 animals surviving out of an entire species isnt bottleneck, its genetic suicide. Let alone only 2.

In a way, it would be obvious, because most, if not all the animals would have long died out, including Humans. That, or hideously, hideously disfigured with many genetic problems.

I don't buy it. A population of ~20 rabbits introduced to Australia grew to 10 billion in under 200 years, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in their DNA was found.

They werent the same species of rabbits, though, and rabbit keeping before the outbreak was highly common in australia. The rabbits in australia today, are a hybrid of a different number of species. There is nothing that is more genetically diverse than having two different species of animals interbreeding.

So its not simply "20+" or "a single species of rabbit", which is a far cry from what the bible claims happened.

Don't forget that Darwin claimed a bottleneck of "one, or several original forms". So humanity couldn't have come from 2 specimens, but the whole ecosystem could have come from one specimen?

One specimen, as in one organism? No. A form is not the same as an organism, and therefore one singular form is not the same as one singular organism.

Humans, for example, all share similar forms. Yet there are 6 billion humans.


Yeah, I don't think that's what Darwin meant, but he's not around to ask.

Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.


What do you mean by "Statistically bounded variation",

Statistically bounded variation is bell curve sort of variation. Electron cloud. That kind of thing.

or "Darwinian evolution"? With regards to common ancestry, this is something that is confirmed via genetics, much the same way that paternity tests "Confirm" whether you are the father of a child.

Human genetics is TESTED. The genetic markers have been tested by correlating them with other data, like genealogies. No such data exists to confirm that humans descended from some other species. I'm not sure why amateur evolutionists cannot seem to realize that evolution is untested. It's just a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

You know, evolutionists are actually flat earthers. What does the flat earther do - he observes that locally the earth appears flat, and then extrapolates that data beyond what he should. You observe relatively small genetic variation, and then extrapolate that data into a theory of origins. And it's an absurd stretch. Just as the planet looks very different at a global perspective, so the origin of life must have been something totally different from the small scale changes we observe today, which are, in my informed opinion, actually highly sophisticated design features.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.

But hey, theres a first time for everything. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that Evolution is wrong, and how have you demonstrated that, for example, Genetics, is faulty and does not support common ancestry?



What do you mean by "Statistically bounded variation",

Statistically bounded variation is bell curve sort of variation. Electron cloud. That kind of thing.

A bell curve is symmetrical, atomic orbitals are not. So what does this have to do with what we are discussing?

or "Darwinian evolution"? With regards to common ancestry, this is something that is confirmed via genetics, much the same way that paternity tests "Confirm" whether you are the father of a child.

Human genetics is TESTED. The genetic markers have been tested by correlating them with other data, like genealogies. No such data exists to confirm that humans descended from some other species. I'm not sure why amateur evolutionists cannot seem to realize that evolution is untested. It's just a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

a). its from our knowledge of human genetics that weve been able to come to the conclusion of how Genetics confirms common ancestry.

b). Geneics with regards to Common ancestry has been tested by correlating them with other data, like homologous structures, specifically between that of, for example, Humans and chimps. Genetics with regards to common ancestry, has also been tested by correlating them with other data, like the fossil record.

You know, evolutionists are actually flat earthers. What does the flat earther do - he observes that locally the earth appears flat, and then extrapolates that data beyond what he should. You observe relatively small genetic variation, and then extrapolate that data into a theory of origins. And it's an absurd stretch. Just as the planet looks very different at a global perspective, so the origin of life must have been something totally different from the small scale changes we observe today, which are, in my informed opinion, actually highly sophisticated design features.

First off, the flat earthers were justified in their conclusion, when they only had the evidence that pointed to a flat earth. Today, we have evidence pointing to a spherical earth, so that position isnt justified anymore.

Secondly, the creationists are the flat earthers of today.

The only thing we have, is the evidence we have today. You are free to posit or hypothesize that we dont share a common ancestry, and that there might be evidence out there to prove your position right, but until you actually demonstrate that the evidence exists, our extrapolation of the evidence is justified, anymore than we are justified in claiming that the Sun undergoes Nuclear fusion to produce energy.

After all, everything we know about the inner workings of the sun, is necessarily extrapolated from the experiments and evidence we have on this planet. Its certainly possible that the sun does not undergo Nuclear Fusion, and that the observed composition and mass points to and is the result of some other unknown mechanism that produces energy. But all we have is the evidence we have today.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

But hey, theres a first time for everything. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that Evolution is wrong, and how have you demonstrated that, for example, Genetics, is faulty and does not support common ancestry?


Same evidence I have that there is no spaghetti monster on the backside of the moon. The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. My evidence is lack of evidence - after 150 years, nobody has demonstrated how random mutation can create new things. You've got NOTHING that can't possibly be attributed to genetics. So Darwinian evolution just doesn't happen, as common sense knew in the first place.



What do you mean by "Statistically bounded variation",

Statistically bounded variation is bell curve sort of variation. Electron cloud. That kind of thing.

A bell curve is symmetrical, atomic orbitals are not. So what does this have to do with what we are discussing?

Genetic variation is statistically bounded. Obviously. Just as you can have IQ from zero to 150 or so, but never 5000. This is zero evidence that an ape can gradually become a human, for instance.


or "Darwinian evolution"? With regards to common ancestry, this is something that is confirmed via genetics, much the same way that paternity tests "Confirm" whether you are the father of a child.

Human genetics is TESTED. The genetic markers have been tested by correlating them with other data, like genealogies. No such data exists to confirm that humans descended from some other species. I'm not sure why amateur evolutionists cannot seem to realize that evolution is untested. It's just a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

a). its from our knowledge of human genetics that weve been able to come to the conclusion of how Genetics confirms common ancestry.


You may have come to the conclusion, but you haven't tested it.

b). Geneics with regards to Common ancestry has been tested by correlating them with other data, like homologous structures, specifically between that of, for example, Humans and chimps.

That's just refining the hypothesis, not testing it.

Genetics with regards to common ancestry, has also been tested by correlating them with other data, like the fossil record.


No, that doesn't prove anything. Species were the same only different in the past, just as they are now. There are no birth records in the fossils showing how humans gradually diverged from some other species. There are only fossils that look kind of like us only different.

You know, evolutionists are actually flat earthers. What does the flat earther do - he observes that locally the earth appears flat, and then extrapolates that data beyond what he should. You observe relatively small genetic variation, and then extrapolate that data into a theory of origins. And it's an absurd stretch. Just as the planet looks very different at a global perspective, so the origin of life must have been something totally different from the small scale changes we observe today, which are, in my informed opinion, actually highly sophisticated design features.

First off, the flat earthers were justified in their conclusion, when they only had the evidence that pointed to a flat earth. Today, we have evidence pointing to a spherical earth, so that position isnt justified anymore.

Secondly, the creationists are the flat earthers of today.


LOL, of course, the Pee Wee Herman defense. Way to totally miss the point. You're just in defense mode here, you're not really thinking about any of this.


After all, everything we know about the inner workings of the sun, is necessarily extrapolated from the experiments and evidence we have on this planet. Its certainly possible that the sun does not undergo Nuclear Fusion, and that the observed composition and mass points to and is the result of some other unknown mechanism that produces energy. But all we have is the evidence we have today.

It's a fair point. And as you say, it's possible it's something else. It's not tested.

But unlike solar nuclear fusion, evolution could certainly be tested if it actually happened. Specimens are born all the time, we can generate mutations pretty much at will. If evolution were a real thing, labs would be full of species not seen in the wild. But all we've gotten, after 150 years, is chicken scratch like citrate digestion, which is as likely as not genetic variation anyway.

So of course you now have to tell me IT TAKES BILLIONS OF YEARS. But if so, you've never seen it, never tested, it remains wild speculation. Deal with it.
This space for rent.
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2014 6:52:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:

Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

Darwin didn't know about mutations as we know now. He recognized that there are variation (which are actually pretty easy to see), but mutations as we know them now are so different, and our knowledge of genetics is important there because mutations are related to genes lol. I mean, genetics a huge part of evolution.

Same evidence I have that there is no spaghetti monster on the backside of the moon. The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. My evidence is lack of evidence - after 150 years, nobody has demonstrated how random mutation can create new things. You've got NOTHING that can't possibly be attributed to genetics. So Darwinian evolution just doesn't happen, as common sense knew in the first place.

The problem is that the evidence of evolution is there compared with the evidence of the spaghetti monster. New genes appear with gene duplication + the other kind of mutations. So basically we end with more genes and imperfect copies. I mean, it is pretty simple and it's well known for a long time.

Genetic variation is statistically bounded. Obviously. Just as you can have IQ from zero to 150 or so, but never 5000. This is zero evidence that an ape can gradually become a human, for instance.

o_O But humans are apes. If you mean the rest of the apes, why would that happen?
It's like saying that the fact that a Portuguese speaker can't convert in an Spanish speaker means that the languages didn't come from Latin.

That's just refining the hypothesis, not testing it.

The theory of evolution is tested using genetic analysis. Genetics actually proves evolution.

No, that doesn't prove anything. Species were the same only different in the past, just as they are now. There are no birth records in the fossils showing how humans gradually diverged from some other species. There are only fossils that look kind of like us only different.


Speciation is inevitable. Sadly, the confusion that a lot of people have is because the word species. When you see the fossils you always say "this is from this species" and "this is from this other" "There is no middle". Which is true. You won't find a point where you notice the change because in any point all the parents will be the same species of their children.
Speciation has been proved. You can use genetics, or even compared anatomy.
I'll give you the same analogy that I gave you in the last answer about the evolution of languages.

The analogy works because both, words and genes are the smallest unity of information in both cases, they reproduce by generations and they are not copied perfect. In other words there are changes over time.

We know Latin speakers spread over Europe, and the changes over time from different territories made clear differences between the languages.
But the languages didn't appear before there were differences.
You need to understand this. The child has always the same language of the parents. But Latin evolved in a lot of languages. Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Catalan, etc.
There is no point where you can say "oh, here it is, here is the digievolution, here is the change", because changes are everywhere.
Why? because the term species, and the term languages only are usable with a lot of differences that occur in long times.

So where are the transitional fossils? Everywhere. All are transitional fossils. All are transitional species, those that are fossils, and we, yes, we are also transitional species.
Remember that 2 individuals are considered from the same species if they can reproduce and have a fertile offspring.
So saying "they are so similar to us, they are not a different species" is not enough.
Of course, they look similar to us, it would not make sense if they weren't. Other primates are also similar to us. But we can't reproduce with them, or at least not all of them.

For example, there are some Neanderthal genes in the human genome.
http://online.wsj.com...
Now remember that the possibility of breeding is less with more differences.
Now we would not be able to breed with them, but at the time, it might be possible, just like lions and tigers can, horses and donkeys can. There are problems tho, like most of the offspring is sterile.

But unlike solar nuclear fusion, evolution could certainly be tested if it actually happened. Specimens are born all the time, we can generate mutations pretty much at will. If evolution were a real thing, labs would be full of species not seen in the wild. But all we've gotten, after 150 years, is chicken scratch like citrate digestion, which is as likely as not genetic variation anyway.

This is false. Evolution is a scientific theory, it is falsifiable. It can be tested even if it was false. We tested tho, and it works very well, it happened, and it's predictions are accurate.
We continue testing it's predictions tho.

So of course you now have to tell me IT TAKES BILLIONS OF YEARS. But if so, you've never seen it, never tested, it remains wild speculation. Deal with it.

What you are saying is way too far from science. "You've never seen it". lol, imagine if detectives thought like that. How many serial killers would be free just because those detectives didn't see the "killing" and they are not going to be able to see it.
But there is evidence that points to the conclusion it happened, just like evolution.
"It takes billion of years" won't matter. We can test the evidence we have.

We balance data and theory.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 11:38:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

What do you mean by "Beyond mutation and natural selection"? What makes you think that anything beyond that is required for common ancestry to be true?

And also, newsflash, Mutation is genetics. So your accusation of how we are "sneaking genetics in the backdoor", while talking about mutations, makes no sense.

Same evidence I have that there is no spaghetti monster on the backside of the moon. The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. My evidence is lack of evidence - after 150 years, nobody has demonstrated how random mutation can create new things. You've got NOTHING that can't possibly be attributed to genetics. So Darwinian evolution just doesn't happen, as common sense knew in the first place.

Except that im pretty sure ive had this discussion with you, and presented the evidence of how common ancestry is true, like genetics, specifically things like ERVs, Chromosome #2, Vitamin C deficiency, etc, within just the common ancestry between humans and other apes.

Genetic variation is statistically bounded. Obviously. Just as you can have IQ from zero to 150 or so, but never 5000. This is zero evidence that an ape can gradually become a human, for instance.

Do you have a study that confirms this? Or are you simply going to claim that this is "Obvious"?

Maybe i should simply start saying that Evolution via common sense is "Obvious" and leave it at that.

You may have come to the conclusion, but you haven't tested it.

Things like deductive and inductive reasoning have a place in science, and has allowed us to make general statements about the universe, which im sure you have no problem accepting, like how scientists claim that Gravity exists on other planets outside this planet and moon of ours, and work in similar fashions to how we understand gravity to work under.

Its how we came to the conclusion as to what the composition of the Sun, and other planets are made of, based on our understanding of gravity, mass, density, and therefore extrapolating what the composition must be from there.

That's just refining the hypothesis, not testing it.

How is this test any different than what you claimed was a test, by correlating it with other data, with regards to human genetics?

No, that doesn't prove anything. Species were the same only different in the past, just as they are now. There are no birth records in the fossils showing how humans gradually diverged from some other species. There are only fossils that look kind of like us only different.

I dont think i ever said "Prove". Infact, Proof doesnt even exist in science.

But heres a question. Do you think that an anthropologist can look at the bones of a human, and the bones of a chimp, and determine which bones belong to which species?

LOL, of course, the Pee Wee Herman defense. Way to totally miss the point. You're just in defense mode here, you're not really thinking about any of this.

First off, why dont you address the first part of the argument?

Secondly, i wasnt using the exact same statements, since i clearly demonstrated and made a distinction, between being a flat earther today, and being a flat earther in the past.

A flat earther in the past, only has the evidence that is availeable to him, locally, and therefore comes to the conclusion, based on the evidence, that the earth is flat. This is what you were talking about.

A flat earther today, has mountains of evidence that contradict his claim, and yet he chooses to ignore them all, and concentrate on only the evidence that exists that confirms his claim.

You said it before, your argument against evolution consists of a lack of evidence. Not evidence to the contrary.

Creationism, has evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, that is the difference between creationism and evolution.

It's a fair point. And as you say, it's possible it's something else. It's not tested.

Surely you agree that not everything in science needs to be tested on every level, right?

But unlike solar nuclear fusion, evolution could certainly be tested if it actually happened. Specimens are born all the time, we can generate mutations pretty much at will. If evolution were a real thing, labs would be full of species not seen in the wild. But all we've gotten, after 150 years, is chicken scratch like citrate digestion, which is as likely as not genetic variation anyway.

Thats kind of like saying "Solar nuclear fusion could certainly be tested if it actually happens, atoms are colliding with other atoms all the time, we can generate fusion pretty much at will. If Solar nuclear fusion were a real thing, labs would be full of micro-stars that are self sustaining. But all weve gotten after 50 years is chicken scratch."

First off, you have a fundemental misunderstanding of evolution.
a). Rapid mutation within a small period of time, produces detrimental effects, whereas if it is spread out, it causes little to no harm. The ability to produce mutations at will, is therefore meaningless without giving enough time for the population in question.
b). 150 years is not nearly enough. Even if you ignore the fact that its only been the past 10-20 years or so, at best, that we have even begun tinkering with genetics, with the other 130, 140 years spent on simply observing, that is nothing compared to the amount of time it took us to breed dogs into different breeds, which is about 10,000, let alone everything else.

So of course you now have to tell me IT TAKES BILLIONS OF YEARS. But if so, you've never seen it, never tested, it remains wild speculation. Deal with it.

Its based on evidence, so its not a wild speculation. But i agree, it has never been seen, or directly tested.

But this doesnt seem to be a problem with nuclear fusion within stars, all we have is indirect evidence, and no one has seen or tested it. It feels kind of hypocritical that creationists are rallied against Evolution for this reason, and yet, seem not to care, and even downright accept Nuclear fusion in stars as science.
DesertEagle
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2014 11:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:13:38 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
If all life was bottlenecked at the same time, would it be obvious?

Yes, that's why species share a common trait/feature to each other. Judging from behaviorism and physical appearance, it's pretty much apparent.

At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
But unlike solar nuclear fusion, evolution could certainly be tested if it actually happened. Specimens are born all the time, we can generate mutations pretty much at will. If evolution were a real thing, labs would be full of species not seen in the wild. But all we've gotten, after 150 years, is chicken scratch like citrate digestion, which is as likely as not genetic variation anyway.

Nuclear fusion requires high energy in order to be ignited. For this reason, nuclear fusion only occurs in stars, in supernovas, in nuclear fusion bombs, in nuclear fusion experimental reactors, in cosmic ray impacts, and in particle accelerators.

So of course you now have to tell me IT TAKES BILLIONS OF YEARS. But if so, you've never seen it, never tested, it remains wild speculation. Deal with it.

No, it doesn't have to take a billion years for a certain specie to evolve. Modern humans evolved sometime between 250,000 to 400,000 years ago, chimpanzee and gorillas (same time) 4-6 million years ago, primates evolved from other mammals around 85 million years ago.

Concerning human genetic bottleneck, it is studied to have happened 50,000 years ago from a super eruption of the Toba super volcano.

Never tested: Have you heard about the chimpanzee genome project? And as of today the human genome project, is currently extending research in relation to evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://news.sciencemag.org...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:21:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/24/2014 6:52:00 PM, ArcTImes wrote:
...

That's just refining the hypothesis, not testing it.

The theory of evolution is tested using genetic analysis. Genetics actually proves evolution.


I think the error here is best expressed by "correlation is not causation". You often hear this phrase in medicine. Let's say the French have less heart attacks than Americans. There are all sorts of data correlations, including the fact that the French drink more wine and eat more butter. So, does eating more butter ward off heart attacks? You can't conclude that - 'correlation is not causation'.

Likewise, finding similarities in genes does not lead to conclusion that one species evolved from another. There can be parallel causation - that is, similar causation for both species leading to similar features. You may find two smooth rocks in a river bed. The similarity in smoothness does not imply one rock led to another, rather, both were subjected to similar forces and therefore look similar.

The converse of 'correlation is not causation' might be 'correlation can only select from known causes'. So your red hair might link you to your father's side of the family because you already know you are linked to both your father and mother's genetics. You cannot conclude your red hair links you to the milkman, unless you know some kind of hanky panky was going on there. This is what I meant by saying the kind of genetics used in court cases is tested. It is selecting from a known and very limited set of causes, just as 'he looks like the robber' will only hold up if there is confirmation that he was in the area at the time.

So look, I know this is a lot to swallow, but I've been reading the literature for a long time and have come to the conclusion that evolution is just flat out bad science. Evolutionists have picked their conclusion a priori and then done whatever is necessary to build a case around it. But correlation is not causation.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:47:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/25/2014 11:38:07 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

What do you mean by "Beyond mutation and natural selection"? What makes you think that anything beyond that is required for common ancestry to be true?


Oh, this is funny! Read your highlighted words above. Have we come a long way - is there something beyond mutation and natural selection, which is Darwin, or not?
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:09:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:47:02 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/25/2014 11:38:07 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

What do you mean by "Beyond mutation and natural selection"? What makes you think that anything beyond that is required for common ancestry to be true?


Oh, this is funny! Read your highlighted words above. Have we come a long way - is there something beyond mutation and natural selection, which is Darwin, or not?

You do realize that in 1859(or was it 56? Cant remember), when Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection in his published book "On the origin of species", that DNA hadnt been discovered yet? And Neither had mutations?

Let alone the evidence we have today, and our understanding of fossils, homologous structures, Genetics, etc?

There is nothing beyond natural selection and mutation that is required for evolution to work. But that doesnt mean our understanding and the evidence hasnt come a long way since 1860. We know more about genetics. We know more about morphology. We know more about Fossils and the fossil record.

Also, waiting on your reply to the rest of my comment.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:52:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:09:45 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 7:47:02 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/25/2014 11:38:07 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

What do you mean by "Beyond mutation and natural selection"? What makes you think that anything beyond that is required for common ancestry to be true?


Oh, this is funny! Read your highlighted words above. Have we come a long way - is there something beyond mutation and natural selection, which is Darwin, or not?

You do realize that in 1859(or was it 56? Cant remember), when Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection in his published book "On the origin of species", that DNA hadnt been discovered yet? And Neither had mutations?

Let alone the evidence we have today, and our understanding of fossils, homologous structures, Genetics, etc?

There is nothing beyond natural selection and mutation that is required for evolution to work. But that doesnt mean our understanding and the evidence hasnt come a long way since 1860. We know more about genetics. We know more about morphology. We know more about Fossils and the fossil record.

So what? Look, if somebody proposes a vehicle that runs on water, you have to demonstrate that you can get the requisite energy from water. It doesn't matter how many years pass or how much you claim to know about water and vehicles, until you can demonstrate a means for extracting the necessary energy from water, ya got nuthin.

Darwin proposed a system of spontaneous creation of new features and new species. You can phrase that any way you want, but until you can demonstrate the mechanisms of such magic, ya got nuthin.


Also, waiting on your reply to the rest of my comment.

Well, I'd like to see that you understand the first things I respond to before I spend energy on other points. It is precisely this matter of not getting to the devil in the details that allows evolutionary nonsense to propagate across generations. You want to wave your hands and say 'billions of years' and I'm not gonna let you do it. You want to say it's science, let's treat it like science.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:34:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:52:58 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:09:45 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/27/2014 7:47:02 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/25/2014 11:38:07 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/23/2014 9:16:36 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/22/2014 11:35:57 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/22/2014 7:40:04 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/21/2014 3:29:45 PM, tkubok wrote:
Yeah, and im pretty sure thats what Darwin meant. But regardless, its debating a meaningless point because Darwin lived 150 years ago and weve come a long way, our understanding about evolution has come a long way since then.

No, our 'understanding about evolution' has NOT come a long way. The hypothesis has been refined ad infinitum but it has not yet been demonstrated through the scientific method.

This is sophistry from evolutionists. Just because you say something for 150 years doesn't make it science. That's the beauty of real science - it's not what scientists say, but what they can demonstrate.

Creationists keep saying this, and yet they are unable to present any evidence to counter evolution, nor demonstrate how the evidence for evolution is faulty.


Huh? The point is, if you're going to say evolution is not Darwinism today, you have to detail what you have beyond mutation and natural selection. And you don't have anything, other than trying to sneak genetics in the back door.

What do you mean by "Beyond mutation and natural selection"? What makes you think that anything beyond that is required for common ancestry to be true?


Oh, this is funny! Read your highlighted words above. Have we come a long way - is there something beyond mutation and natural selection, which is Darwin, or not?

You do realize that in 1859(or was it 56? Cant remember), when Darwin first proposed his theory of natural selection in his published book "On the origin of species", that DNA hadnt been discovered yet? And Neither had mutations?

Let alone the evidence we have today, and our understanding of fossils, homologous structures, Genetics, etc?

There is nothing beyond natural selection and mutation that is required for evolution to work. But that doesnt mean our understanding and the evidence hasnt come a long way since 1860. We know more about genetics. We know more about morphology. We know more about Fossils and the fossil record.

So what? Look, if somebody proposes a vehicle that runs on water, you have to demonstrate that you can get the requisite energy from water. It doesn't matter how many years pass or how much you claim to know about water and vehicles, until you can demonstrate a means for extracting the necessary energy from water, ya got nuthin.

Sure.

But why do you ask "So what?" Your accusation towards me, was with the fact that there must be something beyond simply "Natural selection and mutation", because I wrote in a previously reply, that we have come a long way in our understanding of evolution, which you thought implied that therefore there we must have found out that there exists something more to the mechanism of evolution itself than what Darwin first proposed.

And now that ive corrected your mistaken assumption, your reply shouldnt be "So what?", it should be "Okay, fair enough" or "Okay, I misunderstood you".


Darwin proposed a system of spontaneous creation of new features and new species. You can phrase that any way you want, but until you can demonstrate the mechanisms of such magic, ya got nuthin.

And we have.

The specific examples of the demonstration, exists in my previous reply that you havent gotten to yet.


Also, waiting on your reply to the rest of my comment.

Well, I'd like to see that you understand the first things I respond to before I spend energy on other points.

Fair enough, i just wanted to remind you that there was more to my reply than just that section.

It is precisely this matter of not getting to the devil in the details that allows evolutionary nonsense to propagate across generations. You want to wave your hands and say 'billions of years' and I'm not gonna let you do it. You want to say it's science, let's treat it like science.

Sure, but our discussion seems to have gone back to the rest of my reply,
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:36:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 7:21:33 AM, v3nesl wrote:
I think the error here is best expressed by "correlation is not causation". You often hear this phrase in medicine. Let's say the French have less heart attacks than Americans. There are all sorts of data correlations, including the fact that the French drink more wine and eat more butter. So, does eating more butter ward off heart attacks? You can't conclude that - 'correlation is not causation'.

Likewise, finding similarities in genes does not lead to conclusion that one species evolved from another. There can be parallel causation - that is, similar causation for both species leading to similar features. You may find two smooth rocks in a river bed. The similarity in smoothness does not imply one rock led to another, rather, both were subjected to similar forces and therefore look similar.

The converse of 'correlation is not causation' might be 'correlation can only select from known causes'. So your red hair might link you to your father's side of the family because you already know you are linked to both your father and mother's genetics. You cannot conclude your red hair links you to the milkman, unless you know some kind of hanky panky was going on there. This is what I meant by saying the kind of genetics used in court cases is tested. It is selecting from a known and very limited set of causes, just as 'he looks like the robber' will only hold up if there is confirmation that he was in the area at the time.

So look, I know this is a lot to swallow, but I've been reading the literature for a long time and have come to the conclusion that evolution is just flat out bad science. Evolutionists have picked their conclusion a priori and then done whatever is necessary to build a case around it. But correlation is not causation.

I already know that. One of my favorite one is that lack of pirates cause climate change.
What we did was not just see the genes and say "oh look, this genes are the same, they might be come from the same species!".

If we did, then yes, it would be flawed. Evolution indeed followed all the steps of the scientific method.
Darwin observed the little differences that pinches had depending on the territories they were living in. He hypothesized an explanation for the mechanism for evolution.
Natural selection was an indeed brilliant hypothesis. Then we need to test it, experiment and do whatever it takes to "take it down".

But every prediction is accurate. The similar genes is a prediction that was tested and showed how evolution was true, it was not just looking a correlation and then made the hypothesis. It was the other way around.

The fossil record is also important here but it also shows the time difference between the species.

The genetic analysis let us see when different species were separating from each other.

And natural selection is a really impressive mechanism. Of course, it works naturally, but it also makes evolution of other things possible like language because it have similar characteristics.

Languages change over time because they can't be copied exactly over generations. This changes accumulate to the point 2 speakers that took different paths are not able to speak to each other "creating new languages".

For example Latin. Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Catalan, etc. All those languages evolved from Latin. The only needed was time and speakers spread on different territories. Living beings change over time. When the differences are too big, they are considered from different species. It is the same. Speciation is inevitable.

And after all that comes the theory, which is the model, the explanation of the phenomenon that was already tested and is supported by the evidence.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:17:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:34:10 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

Darwin proposed a system of spontaneous creation of new features and new species. You can phrase that any way you want, but until you can demonstrate the mechanisms of such magic, ya got nuthin.

And we have.


You have? What new feature have you evolved? Don't tell me citrate, lol, since it's most likely genetics anyway. You know I have no problem with scrambling existing information, you need to show me the experiment that clearly shows how random noise can create novel features in life. Novel features, not something inherent in existing DNA.
This space for rent.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 11:21:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 11:17:37 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:34:10 AM, tkubok wrote:
...

Darwin proposed a system of spontaneous creation of new features and new species. You can phrase that any way you want, but until you can demonstrate the mechanisms of such magic, ya got nuthin.

And we have.


You have? What new feature have you evolved? Don't tell me citrate, lol, since it's most likely genetics anyway. You know I have no problem with scrambling existing information, you need to show me the experiment that clearly shows how random noise can create novel features in life. Novel features, not something inherent in existing DNA.

First off, you said, specifically, "Until you can demonstrate the mechanism". And we have demonstrated that the mechanism exists that allows for new features to evolve.

Secondly, natural selection is the selection process that filters out the randomness. If you have a random number generator, and a system that filters out specific numbers, are you still left with a bunch of random numbers?

Thirdly, how do you demonstrate that something is inherently existing in DNA?