Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Give ONE reason I should believe in evolution

Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.

Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Endogenous retroviruses, Redundant pseudogenes, fossil record support, embryology support, genetic support, etc.

But, all of these have been pointed out to you before, so I doubt you will listen.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.


Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.

OK. You make a good case, but answer me this. With the millions of different species alive today, why don't we see even one example of one species evolving into another. There is not one undisputed missing link, dead or alive. None. If evolution is correct there should be billions of them, yet there are none. Why is this? There is also a branch of science, can't remember what it's called. something to do with genetics. Scientists have attempted to use it to verify the evolutionary tree. The results were surprising. Turns out we have more in common with a manta ray, or some other form of sea life, it's been a while since I read it, than we do with chimps. How do you explain this? While someone can make what looks like a credible case for evolution, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. I just can't take evolution seriously.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:48:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Endogenous retroviruses, Redundant pseudogenes, fossil record support, embryology support, genetic support, etc.

But, all of these have been pointed out to you before, so I doubt you will listen.

There is scientific research that questions if they are entirely accurate. For instance, just because different species have similar DNA does not mean that they are related or that one evolved from the other. That is simply someones interpretation of the data. It could also be claimed that since God created everything, He would have used similar DNA. I'm not saying that scientists don't have evidence. I just question their interpretation, human bias being what it is. Scientists are not infallible, after all, as history amply demonstrates.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:08:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:48:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Endogenous retroviruses, Redundant pseudogenes, fossil record support, embryology support, genetic support, etc.

But, all of these have been pointed out to you before, so I doubt you will listen.

There is scientific research that questions if they are entirely accurate. For instance, just because different species have similar DNA does not mean that they are related or that one evolved from the other. That is simply someones interpretation of the data. It could also be claimed that since God created everything, He would have used similar DNA. I'm not saying that scientists don't have evidence. I just question their interpretation, human bias being what it is. Scientists are not infallible, after all, as history amply demonstrates.

You have been told this as well.

There is correlating evidence. Some evidence alone is not evidence, but with correlating evidence it becomes some really good evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:33:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:08:11 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:48:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Endogenous retroviruses, Redundant pseudogenes, fossil record support, embryology support, genetic support, etc.

But, all of these have been pointed out to you before, so I doubt you will listen.

There is scientific research that questions if they are entirely accurate. For instance, just because different species have similar DNA does not mean that they are related or that one evolved from the other. That is simply someones interpretation of the data. It could also be claimed that since God created everything, He would have used similar DNA. I'm not saying that scientists don't have evidence. I just question their interpretation, human bias being what it is. Scientists are not infallible, after all, as history amply demonstrates.

You have been told this as well.

There is correlating evidence. Some evidence alone is not evidence, but with correlating evidence it becomes some really good evidence.

But some would question the interpretation of this evidence. Does it even occur to you that evolutionists might be wrong?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 8:14:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

We have demonstrated the evolution of genes in the lab. No limiting factor has been demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 8:41:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 8:14:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

We have demonstrated the evolution of genes in the lab. No limiting factor has been demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because it can be done in a lab, doesn't mean it occurs in nature.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:09:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 8:41:10 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 8:14:43 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

We have demonstrated the evolution of genes in the lab. No limiting factor has been demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because it can be done in a lab, doesn't mean it occurs in nature.

We have laboratory evidence that evolution happens. We have other evidence (that has been given to you) that it DID.

What, precisely, WOULD be "one piece of evidence that is proof" to your mind?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Zack92
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution is still occurring all around us. The majority of the time however it is not noticeable by people unless we study it very closely. The larger and older a species the longer it would take to evolve. But or other species it occurs much faster especially for insects.

Here is one story of evolution happening in recent years to crickets. Very interesting. Have a look around the Internet there's a whole bunch of similar stories of evolution occurring in a little as a few decades in all sorts of animals.

http://m.bbc.co.uk...
FMAlchemist
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Evolution never contradicts itself. By using the same DNA technology we use for paternity tests we can test the correlation between species. With this we can determine the animals' ancestry. This evidence never contradicts the others. There are some viruses that can modify permanently the DNA of their hosts,in a way they pass these DNA modifications to their descendants. A lot of species that have a common ancestor have the exactly DNA modification in the exact same spot of their DNA,that way we can know when species diverge into different species. These viruses don't contradict the DNA technology nor other evidences. By categorizing animals based on their characteristics only we can form a taxonomic tree categorizing animals. This tree also doesn't contradicts the evidences we have already,because,for example,we can't find tails in primates that evolved from the same ancestor of the great apes without tail. We also have the fossil record with many transitional species like Tiktaalik,Archaeopteryx,Australopithecuses,Ambulocetus,Amphistium and many others. Fossils of different ages never encounter in the same geological layer and we can see their age also doesn't contradicts with the evidence we already have by using many different methods to test their age. Is this enough?
FMAlchemist
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 9:55:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh,i forgot,and before you ask for evidence from today i have it too. Here is a link to an experiment from Russia. They let some silver foxes reproducing for around 50 years,selecting only the ones that were more tameable to reproduce.In these decades these foxes changed not only their tameness but a lot of their physical characteristics and behavior.

Here is the article:
http://suite101.com...

And here is the scientific paper: http://www.hum.utah.edu...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:14:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:02:52 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.


Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.

OK. You make a good case

Don't be fooled. He just told you a lie (perhaps unintentionally) and you didn't think to demand a source. The fact is, his mythological correlation between branches of some tree of life and differences among DNA between species is a myth and does not exist in reality.

It's a lie.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:28:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:02:52 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.


Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.

OK. You make a good case, but answer me this. With the millions of different species alive today, why don't we see even one example of one species evolving into another.

This bird is evolving.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

There is not one undisputed missing link, dead or alive. None. If evolution is correct there should be billions of them, yet there are none. Why is this? There is also a branch of science, can't remember what it's called. something to do with genetics. Scientists have attempted to use it to verify the evolutionary tree. The results were surprising. Turns out we have more in common with a manta ray, or some other form of sea life, it's been a while since I read it, than we do with chimps. How do you explain this? While someone can make what looks like a credible case for evolution, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. I just can't take evolution seriously.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:20:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 7:02:52 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.


Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.

OK. You make a good case, but answer me this. With the millions of different species alive today, why don't we see even one example of one species evolving into another. There is not one undisputed missing link, dead or alive. None. If evolution is correct there should be billions of them, yet there are none. Why is this? There is also a branch of science, can't remember what it's called. something to do with genetics. Scientists have attempted to use it to verify the evolutionary tree. The results were surprising. Turns out we have more in common with a manta ray, or some other form of sea life, it's been a while since I read it, than we do with chimps. How do you explain this? While someone can make what looks like a credible case for evolution, there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it. I just can't take evolution seriously.

You asked for one peice of evidence. I gave you one peice of evidence, and rather than discuss that evidence, you have completely changed the subject and asked a bunch of other questions.

So, let me be clear, regardless of everything else we have; this evidence demonstrates evolution is beyond any form of reasonable doubt true; as there is no other way for the genomes of organisms alive to day to show the patterns that they do if they weren't all related.

Lets discuss this before you try and move on, rather than ignore it.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 10:14:01 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 10/20/2014 7:02:52 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/20/2014 6:25:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Asside from all the ones you've been given in other threads and have constantly ignored, I'll bite.

There are some genes that are shared among all species; and do the same thing and have almost identical protein sequences. So far, no biggy.


Each of these genes however have small coding differences; that do not change what the gene does (and can't!). Every single organism has different variations, and these mutations are effectively random, in that comparing massively different species you will find mutations occuring throughout the gene. Again, so far no biggy.

These changes are identical to a type of change you see in DNA replication all the time: a genetic mutation.

So, if Biblical Creation is true; and everything was created at one time, and each species breeds after "it's kind", and acquires these mutations over time (through the mutation itself and drift); then the pattern that would emerge would be groups of species sharing sets of mutations; ie each "kind" would have a set of distinct mutations (because they're random), to any others. You would also expect creatures that were and were not on the ark to have different distinct mutation patterns (after all, fish weren't brought down to two pairs, they would have diverged and speciated the way they do now, leading to a more diverse set of mutations than a species brought down to only a handful breeding animals; which would propogate most of their, and only their mutations to the subsequent generation.

However, comparing one species to any other would always give you the same number of differences, adjusted for lifespan (obviously, a species that lives a year will have more generations than one that lives 50, and so therefore more mutations).

In evolution, however, there is a constant branching pattern; meaning a species has a particular pattern, which when speciation occurs would then start acquiring changes seperately. What this means, is that species that diverged recently will have sequences closer than species that diverged further back in time.

As the Phylogenic tree indicates the relationship between species, and the order of that relationship, these similarities and differences between two species in these genes should be proportional to the difference in two species on the tree.

So which do you see.

I think you know that.

The patterns in molecular analysis of DNA show that life evolved from common ancestors; as there is NO WAY for the same random changes to happen across multiple unrelates species; in varying amounts depending on the evolutionary relationship of those species if there is no evolutionary relationship.

So patterns in molecular biology can only be explained by processes we know today, having been in operation since the begginings of life, and propogating these changes through multiple lines of descent until modern species are reached.

OK. You make a good case

Don't be fooled. He just told you a lie (perhaps unintentionally) and you didn't think to demand a source. The fact is, his mythological correlation between branches of some tree of life and differences among DNA between species is a myth and does not exist in reality.

It's a lie.

A lie? Wow.

I like the way you basically just said that none of it's true, and offered no reasoning, no sources, and no validation.

But hey, lets go.

Here are accessible sources (which ALL quote references and source documentation).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Slightly less accessible:
http://www.indiana.edu...
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Genome Browser where you can actually go LOOK and compare Cyt-C AND B genes in all animals.

http://www.ensembl.org...

No, it's not a lie.

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.

If you're willing to actually demonstrate that this is wrong by providing evidence, analysis and an argument that explains what the pattern is, and how it doesn't match the predictions of evolution then go ahead.

I understand why you're doing this, you do not want to deal with this evidence, and so dismiss it as a lie. But don't you think it's pretty telling that in the 51 years since we have worked this out and there is still no rebuttal that actually understands the details of what the pattern is, and what it means!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:39:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 6:48:49 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Endogenous retroviruses, Redundant pseudogenes, fossil record support, embryology support, genetic support, etc.


Most, if not all of these, have been discredited, no? Embryology is long dead, to my understanding, and was a rather bizarre idea from the git go. I believe the retrovirus sites have been found to be "boot code", used during early development, and not from viruses at all. I don't know about pseudogenes. And the problem with the fossil record was noted by Darwin himself, and is worse today - why doesn't the record show intermediate species? It shows strange creatures, to be sure, but all of them apparently highly optimized. If evolution occurred, the record should overwhelmingly consist of the half working rejects of evolution. But instead, life appears to be highly functional from day one.

So you do have correlation. To put it in the vernacular, all the species are the same only different. Yes, that could correlate with "descent with modification", but it could also correlate with a common designer or even multiple designers copying off each other. Like I've said, you'll find similar curious patterns in cell phones, or in the linux (android) operating system - bugs or dead code that shows up in different brands of phone. But clearly phones did not evolve through random mutation. Correlation is not causation.

Somebody like ramshutu clearly accepted evolution as an alternative to one traditional reading of the bible, but that's not thinking like a scientist. I can't think God would want us to do anything other than clear our minds as best we can and just look at the evidence and see where it leads. And in this mindset I don't see how an honest person could be enthusiastic about Darwin. It's a pretty big stretch to think all of the marvel of life came from random mutations.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:47:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.


But you can also clearly see that there is a web of similarity in the species, and not just a tree. Birds, bats, and insects all have wings, for instance. Clearly not inherited from each other, yet appearing to share common technology. And this can be found at the genome level as well, so much so that scientists have postulated virus-like sharing of DNA between species.

So if a tree of features is strong evidence for some kind of descent with modification, a web of features is strong evidence for some entirely different mechanism (like intelligent design, for instance)
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:12:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:47:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.


But you can also clearly see that there is a web of similarity in the species, and not just a tree. Birds, bats, and insects all have wings, for instance. Clearly not inherited from each other, yet appearing to share common technology.

They aren't common technology! Bat wings and bird wings and insect wings are massively different, work different ways, have different structures. They may have the same function, but aren't the same technology.

The only time things like that appear in the real world, is when you have different designers working to acheive the same goals but do not want to copy the other.

Now, if there WAS technology that was shared; mammals with gills, bats with bird wings; reptiles with nipples, or a species with a backbone that doesn't have an anus that forms before it's mouth; then it would be a web!

You have this curious habbit, of making analogies that strip out the very things that are key to evolution, and then use the analogy to try and spin evolution is wrong.

And this can be found at the genome level as well, so much so that scientists have postulated virus-like sharing of DNA between species.

You only see this in the genome, if you ignore what the genome is and focus on a simplistic interpretation of genes and sequences that ignores all the key detail that demonstrates evolution. You do this a lot.

So if a tree of features is strong evidence for some kind of descent with modification, a web of features is strong evidence for some entirely different mechanism (like intelligent design, for instance)

The organisation of life does not match anything that is intelligently designed.

The taxonomic "Tree of life", concerns the form of organisms; NOT the function as you suggest. It would be invalidated if a form present on one branch of a tree, is also present in another disparate branch of the three without being present all the way down the chain.

What you see when you categorise both extant and extinct life by form in this way (and it also works with embryology too!) you build up a nested heirarchy. Groups within groups of species with common features, each species in a group has the common features of all the species in the group above, and all the common features of all the species in the group above that.

Nothing intelligently designed works can be arranged like that; they are arranged, as you say, in the web.

A good explanation of how significant this is, is here:
https://www.youtube.com...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 8:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Vaccines. Bacteria and viruses evolve to adapt to certain vaccines and cures we have, so that's why we must learn evolution. So we can stop bad diseases before they get worse. Like if we find Ebola's vaccine, then we combat it. However, if Ebola still gets a chance to live, then Ebola can adapt and evolve to where it builds an immunity to the vaccine. So it evolved. If we learn how, we can combat it. So knowledge of evolution can save a life.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:12:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:12:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:47:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.


But you can also clearly see that there is a web of similarity in the species, and not just a tree. Birds, bats, and insects all have wings, for instance. Clearly not inherited from each other, yet appearing to share common technology.

They aren't common technology! Bat wings and bird wings and insect wings are massively different, work different ways, have different structures. They may have the same function, but aren't the same technology.


Exactly. But they are the same technology - they are all wings, all flapping wings. No fixed wings with separate engines, for instance.

The only time things like that appear in the real world, is when you have different designers working to acheive the same goals but do not want to copy the other.


How about jets and helicopters? The difference has to do with different goals, not with "not want to copy the other"

But I'm tickled to see that at some level you understand that the world of intelligent design is the "real world". Evolution is the imaginary world, we both do actually agree on that, I think.


You have this curious habbit, of making analogies that strip out the very things that are key to evolution,

Maybe because the things that are key to evolution don't actually exist? I can only make analogy from the real world, you see.


You only see this in the genome, if you ignore what the genome is and focus on a simplistic interpretation of genes and sequences that ignores all the key detail that demonstrates evolution. You do this a lot.


Lol, I call pure bs bluff on this one.


The organisation of life does not match anything that is intelligently designed.


Sure it does, I just gave examples. Hello?

The taxonomic "Tree of life", concerns the form of organisms; NOT the function as you suggest. It would be invalidated if a form present on one branch of a tree, is also present in another disparate branch of the three without being present all the way down the chain.


Yes, exactly. But, like all of life, like the evidence for evolution, it's always going to be "the same only different". Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. (and don't debate that, unless you want to embarrass yourself).

What you see when you categorise both extant and extinct life by form in this way (and it also works with embryology too!) you build up a nested heirarchy.

You can. You can do that with cell phones too - those that fold, those that have touch screen, etc, etc. Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. You are INFERRING physical descent. Actually demonstrate that descent with modification producing the things you claim and you'll have science.


Nothing intelligently designed works can be arranged like that; they are arranged, as you say, in the web.


Huh? Obviously we could make a tree of descent for the automobile industry, or the cell phone industry, or dozens of others you could think of with a few moments thought. We could trace the evolution of the windshield wiper, the air conditioner, the suspension technologies, etc., and we would have a tree of descent. And it shows intelligent design, not mutation. You have both - clear direct (and more common) inheritance, and also inheritance from other branches. The 2015 cars, for instance, will most directly resemble their immediate 2014 ancestors, but you'll have a few examples where somebody tried something quite different.

You can understand this if you're willing to: The fossil record et al, suggest evolution, but not exclusively, and come nowhere near establishing what could be called a scientific theory of evolution. It is today, as it was in Darwin's day, a wild-assed guess, and the preferred creation myth of 21st century elites. It is a creation myth, my man, not that much different from those told round ancient campfires. It's still based on magic, just as they were.
This space for rent.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:38:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because it's a well evidenced claim believed by those with the relevant expertise.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:12:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:12:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:47:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.


But you can also clearly see that there is a web of similarity in the species, and not just a tree. Birds, bats, and insects all have wings, for instance. Clearly not inherited from each other, yet appearing to share common technology.

They aren't common technology! Bat wings and bird wings and insect wings are massively different, work different ways, have different structures. They may have the same function, but aren't the same technology.


Exactly. But they are the same technology - they are all wings, all flapping wings. No fixed wings with separate engines, for instance.

No. They're different. they have different form, operate differently, different structures; driven differently, and have different aerodynamic principles. Pretty much ALL aircraft, for example have similar wing structures (although in some cases different shapes), and are powered by some form of jet engine, the same control surfaces and such like.

The only time things like that appear in the real world, is when you have different designers working to acheive the same goals but do not want to copy the other.


How about jets and helicopters? The difference has to do with different goals, not with "not want to copy the other"

But we were just talking about things that are, according to you "the same technology because they're all wings," it's a bit disingenious now to throw in what is obviously "different" technology in order to justify the reason why technology is the same.

It's either one or the other; either they're different, or they're not.

But I'm tickled to see that at some level you understand that the world of intelligent design is the "real world". Evolution is the imaginary world, we both do actually agree on that, I think.

I find it tickling that you confuse the concepts of different and the same in consequetive sentences. But I know you know what I meant, a little bit of disingenuity never goes amis in creationism.


You have this curious habbit, of making analogies that strip out the very things that are key to evolution,

Maybe because the things that are key to evolution don't actually exist? I can only make analogy from the real world, you see.

Well you don't. What you do in the anove analogy is focus on function and ignore form; and then use it to show something. However as evolution, and nested heirarchies for example are primarily about form and not function, it is not surprising your analogy isn't compatible!

You only see this in the genome, if you ignore what the genome is and focus on a simplistic interpretation of genes and sequences that ignores all the key detail that demonstrates evolution. You do this a lot.


Lol, I call pure bs bluff on this one.

You stress the phrases "Common Genes", while ignoring the minutae detail of the errors, and point changes that propogate across genomes in specific patterns consistent only with descent. It is not the former, but that latter that demonstrates evolution and when you make statements which don't even acknowledge they exist, and focus on "Common Genes" as if they are simply copied and pasted in a word processor. This is what you do a lot, and why you're arguments generally fail entirely as examples of straw men.


The organisation of life does not match anything that is intelligently designed.


Sure it does, I just gave examples. Hello?

You gave trivial examples of a "wing", and no specific example of the organisation of anything that is intelligently designed.

Please, arrange any "intelligently" designed thing by traits into a nested heirarchy and I will show you where and why that nested heirarchy is invalidated in a way that is not in life.

The taxonomic "Tree of life", concerns the form of organisms; NOT the function as you suggest. It would be invalidated if a form present on one branch of a tree, is also present in another disparate branch of the three without being present all the way down the chain.


Yes, exactly. But, like all of life, like the evidence for evolution, it's always going to be "the same only different". Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. (and don't debate that, unless you want to embarrass yourself).

Saying the pattern doesn't exist is all well and good.

Show me where the tree is violated.

What you see when you categorise both extant and extinct life by form in this way (and it also works with embryology too!) you build up a nested heirarchy.

You can. You can do that with cell phones too - those that fold, those that have touch screen, etc, etc. Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. You are INFERRING physical descent. Actually demonstrate that descent with modification producing the things you claim and you'll have science.
Nothing intelligently designed works can be arranged like that; they are arranged, as you say, in the web.


Huh? Obviously we could make a tree of descent for the automobile industry, or the cell phone industry, or dozens of others you could think of with a few moments thought. We could trace the evolution of the windshield wiper, the air conditioner, the suspension technologies, etc., and we would have a tree of descent. And it shows intelligent design, not mutation. You have both - clear direct (and more common) inheritance, and also inheritance from other branches. The 2015 cars, for instance, will most directly resemble their immediate 2014 ancestors, but you'll have a few examples where somebody tried something quite different.

Ahh, but you can't! You can try but they are always invalidated!

iPhones, iPads, iPods and iPod touches can be arranged in a heirarchy.

But you get fundamentally different trees when giving different weight to different traits. Sure we know the progression of products; but LTE appeared in iPhones and iPads after their initial appearance and are not shared by a common ancestor. The same goes for Retina displays, thumb touch home buttons and processor. You have to say one trait is so much more important than others when creating the list, which becomes subjective NOT objective.

Life is not like that for the very reason Apple are not constrained by descent with modification.

You can understand this if you're willing to: The fossil record et al, suggest evolution, but not exclusively, and come nowhere near establishing what could be called a scientific theory of evolution. It is today, as it was in Darwin's day, a wild-assed guess, and the preferred creation myth of 21st century elites. It is a creation myth, my man, not that much different from those told round ancient campfires. It's still based on magic, just as they were.

The fossile record exclusively points to a progression of animals over time acquiring different traits that appear limited to modification of traits that were already in existance; innumerable transitional forms that share traits of animals that were alive, and some but not all diagnostic traits of animals that were present in the future showing individual steps.

If you can show me in what way that is consistent with any other paradigm, go right ahead; until that time, this is you just asserting without argument that evolution is not true.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 12:35:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:51:54 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:12:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:12:31 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:47:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

They aren't common technology! Bat wings and bird wings and insect wings are massively different, work different ways, have different structures. They may have the same function, but aren't the same technology.


Exactly. But they are the same technology - they are all wings, all flapping wings. No fixed wings with separate engines, for instance.

No. They're different. they have different form, operate differently, different structures; driven differently, and have different aerodynamic principles.

Yup, same only different, the basis of evolution in the first place. And btw, you could say the same thing about bird wings - the gliders like the buzzards vs hummingbirds - they're very different. So are they related by descent, or not? The I-can't-believe-those-little-wings-can-lift-him of the bumblebee vs the radical any-direction acceleration of the dual winged dragonfly. Are they related?


But we were just talking about things that are, according to you "the same technology because they're all wings," it's a bit disingenious now to throw in what is obviously "different" technology in order to justify the reason why technology is the same.


Well, I meant the technology of flying in general. The fact that everything uses wings is quite significant to me - not passive flight like milkweed, not fixed wing, but all using powered wings, across the spectrum of non-plant life.

... But I know you know what I meant, a little bit of disingenuity never goes amis in creationism.


I think it was a freudian slip, actually, you said more than you knew. But I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, just wanted to comment on it.

However as evolution, and nested heirarchies for example are primarily about form and not function, it is not surprising your analogy isn't compatible!


Well, let's keep in mind here: In evolution, the hierarchies are primarily about descent. Evolutionists infer the hierarchies, they don't observe nor test them, and that's the problem. You want to argue how they are inferred, but how we confirm that the inferences are correct is the scientific issue.


You stress the phrases "Common Genes", while ignoring the minutae detail of the errors, and point changes that propogate across genomes in specific patterns consistent only with descent. It is not the former, but that latter that demonstrates evolution

It doesn't 'demonstrate'. It implies evolution. Surely you can see the difference?? To demonstrate means to demonstrate. If I show you how to open a jar, I have demonstrated something. If I merely point to an open jar, I have not demonstrated how it got opened. We can infer that the lid is removable, but I have not demonstrated that it is.

Yes, exactly. But, like all of life, like the evidence for evolution, it's always going to be "the same only different". Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. (and don't debate that, unless you want to embarrass yourself).

Saying the pattern doesn't exist is all well and good.


No, what I say doesn't mean "pattern doesn't exist", only that it is metadata. A ruler and a stick may both be 1 meter long, but neither a stick or a ruler knows it's a meter. Only a sentient observer can note that both are 1 meter long. So the question becomes "so what?" Does the equivalence matter, does it point to common origin, for instance?


Ahh, but you can't! You can try but they are always invalidated!

iPhones, iPads, iPods and iPod touches can be arranged in a heirarchy.

But you get fundamentally different trees when giving different weight to different traits.

Well, but the trees still exist. The patterns are still there for us to observe. But you can make correct and incorrect inferences from these observed patterns. If you infer that all touchscreens came from the same designer, for instance, you'd end up being wrong.

And here's the million dollar point to note here: You can TEST the inferences. You see a pattern, make an inference, then test the inference using other data. And that's the scientific method right there. But this is not done in evolution. There is no way to actually test what animal descended from what. You may have multiple patterns to infer from, but no way to test them. You don't even have any way to test that animals can evolve at all. You ONLY have evidence that small changes do occur in reproduction, the vast majority of which are genetics, not mutation proper.


The fossile record exclusively points to a progression of animals over time acquiring different traits that appear limited to modification of traits that were already in existance; innumerable transitional forms that share traits of animals that were alive, and some but not all diagnostic traits of animals that were present in the future showing individual steps.


No, Ram, this is just wrong. This is a fairy tale. Like I say, they find dead animals in the ground, everything beyond that is inference. And much of the inference is retroactive - a fossil's place in the tree is inferred from assumed evolution as much as anything else.

If you can show me in what way that is consistent with any other paradigm, go right ahead; until that time, this is you just asserting without argument that evolution is not true.

My argument is that it can't be demonstrated. I don't accept evolution for the same reason I don't accept flying saucers - nobody can show me any. Might there be visitors from outer space? Sure, I'm open to the possibility. So if anybody finds a saucer, let's have a look at it, that's all. And if anybody ever manages to actually observe or synthesize the evolution of some new animal, let's have a look at it. But in the meantime I feel no need to believe in an explanation for all life that's probably not even possible. If you can ever get objective about this - I mean, it takes some time to clear your head, but evolution has got to be one of the most bizarre chapters in human history. It's really pretty nutso, actually, a really bizarre bit of mob insanity.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:10:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 12:35:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:51:54 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:12:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
They aren't common technology! Bat wings and bird wings and insect wings are massively different, work different ways, have different structures. They may have the same function, but aren't the same technology.

Exactly. But they are the same technology - they are all wings, all flapping wings. No fixed wings with separate engines, for instance.

No. They're different. they have different form, operate differently, different structures; driven differently, and have different aerodynamic principles.

Yup, same only different, the basis of evolution in the first place. And btw, you could say the same thing about bird wings - the gliders like the buzzards vs hummingbirds - they're very different. So are they related by descent, or not? The I-can't-believe-those-little-wings-can-lift-him of the bumblebee vs the radical any-direction acceleration of the dual winged dragonfly. Are they related?

Well of course they, are because while the *function* is different, the *form* is very similar. The same way using a hammer and a brick to put a nail into the wall have the same function but different forms. The example you cite have many similarities in form but are not identical. The same goes for penguin flippers, same form as wings, but have different function. The list of different functions, same form, and similar function, different for is pretty extensive; and before you think that's bad for evolution, the primary design constrained you see when comparing these things is "The designer has to take something he's already done and tweak it"

But we were just talking about things that are, according to you "the same technology because they're all wings,"
Well, I meant the technology of flying in general. The fact that everything uses wings is quite significant to me - not passive flight like milkweed, not fixed wing, but all using powered wings, across the spectrum of non-plant life.

Except you don't see cars with plane wings, nor do you see submarines with plane wings. Nor do you see fundamentally type of wings on a passenger plane compared to another passenger plane. The list of what doesn't match vastly exceeds the list of things that do when comparing nature and human stuff.

However as evolution, and nested heirarchies for example are primarily about form and not function, it is not surprising your analogy isn't compatible!


Well, let's keep in mind here: In evolution, the hierarchies are primarily about descent. Evolutionists infer the hierarchies, they don't observe nor test them, and that's the problem. You want to argue how they are inferred, but how we confirm that the inferences are correct is the scientific issue.

Yeah we test them. You test them by making sure everyone makes the same tree when doing it objectively. You try and find things that break the tree; you cross reference the tree with embryology, chronology and geography. It's why finding fossile bunnies in the cambrian would be a big deal! More importantly, we cross validate it with comparative genomics; which gives the same tree.

You stress the phrases "Common Genes", while ignoring the minutae detail of the errors, and point changes that propogate across genomes in specific patterns consistent only with descent. It is not the former, but that latter that demonstrates evolution

It doesn't 'demonstrate'. It implies evolution.

"Demonstrate: clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence."

"Imply: indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference."

There are many aspects of life that imply evolution; genomics is one aspect that demonstrates it, as descent is the only possible way such patterns can occur short of inventing a process you cannot show, or invoking wild coincidence.

Saying the pattern doesn't exist is all well and good.


No, what I say doesn't mean "pattern doesn't exist", only that it is metadata.

Okay, so before I continue: you agree that the nested heirarchy is valid, does exist, and is unviolated when organised by traits?

But you get fundamentally different trees when giving different weight to different traits.

Well, but the trees still exist. The patterns are still there for us to observe.

Well of course the tree's still exist. Duh. That's not the point.

The point is that when you order life objectively; you get an unviolated tree. You do not with anything designed. It's not that life forms any old tree that is different for anyone; it's that it forms an unviolated tree and one that, (barring arguments about minute placement), is pretty much the same regardless of who constructs it.

The reason that HAS to occur in descent, is that descent is bound by small changes; an design is not.

And here's the million dollar point to note here: You can TEST the inferences. You see a pattern, make an inference, then test the inference using other data. And that's the scientific method right there. But this is not done in evolution.

Considering this post started off ALL ABOUT a key test of these inferences, and passed with flying colors, and considering that every single time I mention the tree, that I continually point out it is cross referenced by geograpy, embryology, chronology and every single fossile ever found....

The fact that you now claim the inferences haven't been tested with a straight face is, quite frankly, retarded.

There is no way to actually test what animal descended from what. You may have multiple patterns to infer from, but no way to test them. You don't even have any way to test that animals can evolve at all. You ONLY have evidence that small changes do occur in reproduction, the vast majority of which are genetics, not mutation proper.

Asside from the ways I have described here. These demonstrate it.

No, Ram, this is just wrong. This is a fairy tale. Like I say, they find dead animals in the ground, everything beyond that is inference. And much of the inference is retroactive - a fossil's place in the tree is inferred from assumed evolution as much as anything else.

I have explained in detail why this is right; fossiles are put on the tree based on traits and pretty much traits alone. It's not up for assumption or subjective interpretation. You cannot put a dog next to a fish, or a bat next to an amoeba.

If you want to prove it's inferrence, organise life by traits and give me a fundamentally different tree.


If you can show me in what way that is consistent with any other paradigm, go right ahead; until that time, this is you just asserting without argument that evolution is not true.

My argument is that it can't be demonstrated. I don't accept evolution for the same reason I don't accept flying saucers - nobody can show me any.

That's not why you don't accept evolution.

I have explained the nested heirarchy, that it's unviolated (which you don't seem to appreciate the significance of), objective, cross referenced by chronology, geology, embryology and molecular evidence that all give the same tree. Numerous transitional forms are found connecting branches of the three and in many cases are predicted based on inferred evolutionary relationships indicating what such transitional forms *should* look like.

When you can turn around and not just debate the science of it, but flat out claim that none of that has actually been done, providing no argument as to why these do not count other than sneaky equivocation by changing the definition of the word "demonstrate", that should tell you all that you need to know about this discussion.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:18:07 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I like the way you basically just said that none of it's true, and offered no reasoning, no sources, and no validation.

But hey, lets go.

Here are accessible sources (which ALL quote references and source documentation).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

I can't be bothered with wikipedia or talkorigins.

Slightly less accessible:
http://www.indiana.edu...

This is an assignment asking students to make a tree from a small sample of genetic data. This does not support your argument unless you can demonstrate only one objective tree can be constructed that corresponds with an objective tree constructed from fossil data.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

[B]y the yardstick of genetic divergence in this mtDNA gene, as well as genetic distances in allozymes, there is rather poor equivalency of taxonomic rank across some of the vertebrates.

This source actually undermines your argument.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Look at Table 1. The cytochrome-c variations do not correspond to the estimated times of divergence. In other words, you have two contradictory trees, and it's not possible that both are objective. However, it's possible that both are subjective, and this means you have not supported your argument.


Genome Browser where you can actually go LOOK and compare Cyt-C AND B genes in all animals.

http://www.ensembl.org...

No, it's not a lie.

No matter how many times you want to post that such a pattern does not exist; does not make it go away any more than insisting the moon is made of cheese actually makes it so.

You can't make an objective tree from genes, I'm sorry. It's simple as that. A tree from one set of genetic data always clashes with a tree from another no matter how many different data sets you try.

If you're willing to actually demonstrate that this is wrong by providing evidence, analysis and an argument that explains what the pattern is, and how it doesn't match the predictions of evolution then go ahead.

It doesn't match the prediction of evolution because as I already pointed out, the genetic 'tree' clashes with the fossil 'tree.'

I understand why you're doing this, you do not want to deal with this evidence, and so dismiss it as a lie. But don't you think it's pretty telling that in the 51 years since we have worked this out and there is still no rebuttal that actually understands the details of what the pattern is, and what it means!

You can make a tree from vehicles, so even if I granted your argument as true, it would not be a prima facie case for evolution.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 4:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 8:55:42 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Vaccines. Bacteria and viruses evolve to adapt to certain vaccines and cures we have, so that's why we must learn evolution. So we can stop bad diseases before they get worse. Like if we find Ebola's vaccine, then we combat it. However, if Ebola still gets a chance to live, then Ebola can adapt and evolve to where it builds an immunity to the vaccine. So it evolved. If we learn how, we can combat it. So knowledge of evolution can save a life.

The do not evolve. That is a common misconception. They do change though. Viruses have the ability to incorporate DNA from other viruses. This happens when someone is infected by two or more viruses at the same time. Also, when a bacteria becomes resistant or immune to antibiotics, it is not evolving. It actually devolves. It becomes unable to ingest the antibiotic.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:01:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 4:43:06 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/21/2014 8:55:42 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/20/2014 5:53:37 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
Just one reason. Show me one piece of evidence that is proof that it ever happened.

Vaccines. Bacteria and viruses evolve to adapt to certain vaccines and cures we have, so that's why we must learn evolution. So we can stop bad diseases before they get worse. Like if we find Ebola's vaccine, then we combat it. However, if Ebola still gets a chance to live, then Ebola can adapt and evolve to where it builds an immunity to the vaccine. So it evolved. If we learn how, we can combat it. So knowledge of evolution can save a life.

The do not evolve. That is a common misconception. They do change though. Viruses have the ability to incorporate DNA from other viruses. This happens when someone is infected by two or more viruses at the same time. Also, when a bacteria becomes resistant or immune to antibiotics, it is not evolving. It actually devolves. It becomes unable to ingest the antibiotic.

Evolving means small changes to how someone adapts.