Different Opinions....Who is right?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Grief, what faith!

And faith is a bad thing, ey?
Ever heared that saying of throwing bricks when living in a house of glass?

Anyway: no faith required when one has verifiable evidence.

As time goes on & more research gets done, the fossil record reveals more and more discontinuity (because the same fossils are being discovered);

Show me one out-of-place fossil.

as the record becomes further established, the gaps will widen & will ultimately destroy your CD assumptions.

1. no idea what you mean by "CD"

2. what gaps?

It's one reason why there is so much disunity among paleontologists, as to which "pathways" life took.

"so much"?
Citation required.

Also: there's a difference between detailed evolutionary HISTORY of a secific lineage and evolution as a process and the general main lines of events.

Consider it like this: there is a difference between determining from evidence that the second world war happened and how the general development of that war was on the one hand, and who a specific nazi soldier shot on some specific morning on the other hand.

And that, in attempting to explain the record, they have to resort to fantastical assumptions like Punctuated Equilibrium.

What is so "fantastical" in your opinion about the idea that during times of environmental stability, evolutionary change slows down as selection parameters stay stable and thus favour the status quo and that during times of environmental instability, evolutionary change speeds up as selection parameters change relatively rapidly and therefor no longer favor the status quo?

We see the exact same effect in evolutionary models using genetic algoritms.
This is quite basic stuff.

So please explain clearly what it exactly it is that you find so "fantastical" about this testable phenomenon?

 

[cladking]

I have no such a priori convictions.

Of course you do . Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. Many of them are probably true or true enough but many others are probably false or mostly false.

You believe you can reduce reality for study. You believe there are laws that nature must behave. You believe you can understand change in species without knowing how even one single individual differs from its parents.

You believe math can be used to quantify nature and that science on its current trajectory will be fill in all the tiny little gaps in our knowledge over the coming centuries.

You are almost certainly wrong about all of these and have deluded yourself into believing that science has already provided answers to most of the important questions. You see reality only in terms of science and overlook anomalies because we each see our beliefs preferentially to anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course you do . Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. Many of them are probably true or true enough but many others are probably false or mostly false.

2 things.

First, when I said "I have no such a priori convictions." I was talking about others then the common set of basal assumptions that we must all make in order to be able to function somewhat in reality.

You believe you can reduce reality for study

No.

Continued apparant succes of the study of reality, by coming up with usefull things that prove to be quite accurate, suggests that much of reality at least can be reduced for study.

You believe there are laws that nature must behave

You believe you can understand change in species without knowing how even one single individual differs from its parents.

You believe math can be used to quantify nature and that science on its current trajectory will be fill in all the tiny little gaps in our knowledge over the coming centuries. ​

You are almost certainly wrong about all of these and have deluded yourself into believing that science has already provided answers to most of the important questions. You see reality only in terms of science and overlook anomalies because we each see our beliefs preferentially to anything else.

I always find it hilarious when people try to "tell me" what I believe instead of asking first.

This is rather sneaky of you, as most of these points sound kinda close, but at the same time you sneak in extra points which really really aren't true and spin the whole thing around. I find it quite dishonest of you.

So I can only say that you were wrong about pretty much everything you claimed that I believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You’re right, I do, but I just couldn’t figure out the best way to put it.

Besides, I’m not totally sure that the facts support even my limited view of evolution.

If you are so unsure, how can you make the claims you do regarding the theory of evolution?

What allows evolution to occur at the level of the family and what prevents it beyond that. Besides time scale, what is different about micro- and macro-evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Grief, what faith!

As time goes on & more research gets done, the fossil record reveals more and more discontinuity (because the same fossils are being discovered);

What does this mean? What evidence are you basing this on?

as the record becomes further established, the gaps will widen & will ultimately destroy your CD assumptions.

That has never been the case. The gaps are continually narrowing.

It's one reason why there is so much disunity among paleontologists, as to which "pathways" life took.

If the gaps are not widening, then it cannot be a reason for discussion and debate over details. Some of the reasons for debate and discussion were superficially outlined in that abstract you linked, though you do not seem to understand what that discussion is about.

And that, in attempting to explain the record, they have to resort to fantastical assumptions like Punctuated Equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium is an expansion of the theory based on the evidence. Going where the evidence leads is not fantastical or assumption.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He has already proven multiple times that he doesn't even know what evolution itself is...

In the post you are replying to he did that again...
Whenever a person talks about "micro" and "macro" evolution as if they are different things where one can happen and not the other, one already knows that the ignorance on the subject runs very deep.

I agree. None of the adversaries of science have ever provided evidence or valid reasons for their claims.

Some just troll their fantasy claims and repeat them over and over again as if enough repetition and they will become fact. Crazy cat-dog mutations that happened in one generation after the mythical flood, plastic laws of physics without evidence, and nothing grounded in any evidence. It is not even garbage science fiction, just delusion.

 

[tas8831]

So I can only say that you were wrong about pretty much everything you claimed that I believe.

He is pretty much wrong about everything HE believes...

 

[tas8831]

Obsolete?
Sept., 2018:
“It’s not rewriting the idea of natural selection. Rather, it’s rewriting our understanding of evolution, of which natural selection is still a very important part. There are two phases in classic Darwinian evolution. First, there is the arising of variations from one creature to another or one individual population to another. “

From Was Darwin Wrong About Evolution? New Discoveries Suggest He May Have Been.

Did you read beyond that quote?|

"What is new, and caused New Scientist to run that over-stated and provocative headline, “Darwin Was Wrong,” is that we now understand there is another, hugely significant form of variation. It’s not just incremental mutation, but horizontal gene transfer, bringing entirely new packages of DNA into genomes."​

Quammen is a science writer, not a scientist, for one thing.
Horizontal gene transfer is NEW????

Tell that to Barbara McClintock, who discovered them (or at least the basis for them) in the 1950s.

Quammen is OK, and you were just looking for your usual bland 'vindication' but come on...

Someone should tell NatGeo.

Agreed - but NatGeo is not a scientific publication, really.

Whatever.... Darwin’s theory does not predict what has been discovered in the Cambrian.

Does ID?

Does YECism?

If so, do tell!

I do however believe in evolution as the means to form new species within family taxa (probably no broader level of organisms.)

Cool arbitrary demarcation - what is your scientific rationale for this?

 

[tas8831]

It is from the evidence that evolution, despite what you’ve been led to believe, has never shown any ability to create de novo anatomical features increasing fitness.

Can you provide citations showing that evolution ever posited the de novo creation of anatomical features?
I'm betting no.
I am aware of evidence using mutant zebrafish in which a single mutation produced joints (complete with joint capsule) in zebrafish fins. Got any evidence of your deity creating anything ever?

Experiments that sped up evolution, like those w/ D. melanogaster etc., revealed the ineffectiveness of the Theory to do so.

Experiments of Drosophila were intended to "speed up" evolution, were they?

This reeks of the claims that Miller set out to "create life".

Citations please.

I say it seems logical to make the demarcation, probably most within each family-level taxon, where the species share the most similarities, which natural selection could viably alter.

So... members of Order Primates do not share enough similarities which natsel could alter to produce the various Families?
What is the logic behind this?
What is your evidence?
What is your evidence that representatives of Families were created via deity magic and dust?

 

[tas8831]

You and the other CD evolution supporters....what is your argument based on?

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found. Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”....but the evidence shows otherwise.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

Tell us how long the Cambrian was. And then tell us about the Precambrian.

And then tell us about the Ediacaran fauna.

And then tell us wherein all that the flood happened and what the evidence for it is.

 

[tas8831]

Well let’s see. For over 150 years, scientists have been searching for viable precursors to the Cambrian organisms. The result? None have been found. Yet, what do CD evolution theorists say? “They must have existed”

This group seems to disagree:

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

"Recent discoveries are filling in the fossil record for the Precambrian fauna with soft-bodied organisms like those in the Ediacaran Assemblages found around the world.7 Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air."​

But what do they know - just a bunch of Christian scientists....

....but the evidence shows otherwise.

So that, my friend, is an argument from faith!

Yes, you argue from faith almost exclusively.

 

[tas8831]

What exact evolutionary pathway dino's took to evolve into birds, are NOT "interpretations" of the facts.
All paleontologists do agree on the actual interpretation of the facts. And that interpretation is that birds are dino's that share a common ancestor which was a dino but not a bird.

Isn't it interesting when they bring up disagreements - typically revolving around minutiae or minor details - among evolutionary researchers as some kind of indication that evolution is wrong or on the verge of collapse....

Yet they ignore the fact that there are OLD EARTH creationists and YOUNG EARTH creationists, whose interpretations of the SAME SOURCE differs by about 5 orders of magnitude....

 

[tas8831]

They are actually based on an interpretation of the evidence.

Furthermore, it always fits a presupposed interpretation.

Projection.

I guess I will have to post this yet again:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.

 

[tas8831]

interesting article:

Gerd Müller’s “The Explanatory Deficits of the Modern Synthesis.”

To hear some of you guys talk, there are no deficits.

It depends on the claims you happen to be making, I suppose. Of course, correcting erroneous claims by creationists is not the same thing as denying that improvements can be made.

Then there’s this (RE: the extended synthesis):

“Most of the contributors to Evolution, the Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism.”

(From Evolution, the Extended Synthesis )

So the ToE, as currently understood, makes “assumptions”. (I keep hearing they’re facts.)

First, assumptions, in this context, are things taken for granted in order to avoid having to re-do centuries of work every time you discuss it.

Do you wear glasses or know someone that does? If so, do you do a series of experiments to demonstrate the principles of optics prior to putting your glasses on, or do you assume that the lenses will actually and appropriately bend the light passing through them?

Apparently, some of these assumptions, i.e., beliefs*, need to be discarded.

Apparently, there are people - yes, even scientists - that like seeing their name in print. The last time Muller and his crew's claims came up on here (I think), it was shown that much of their claims were not nearly as well established as they present them to be.

*An “Assumption” is where you believe something to be true, but it is yet unproven while a “belief” is something you are certain is true. However, our beliefs may, in fact, be assumptions that are in the end false.

(Above Excerpt from
Assumption vs. Belief - Why You Need To Know The Difference | How to Advice for your Side-Hustle or Small Business)

(Author of the above blog, further discusses mindset behaviors.)

Good for him.I wonder if you will take it to heart.

"However, our beliefs may, in fact, be assumptions that are in the end false."

Especially when you believe something for which there is not only no evidence, but that the evidence that does exist contradicts it (e.g., the flood).

 

[tas8831]

Follow it then, don't lead it.

Like how you followed the evidence that 'broccas area' is bifurcated?

Oh, wait - there is no evidence for that at all, you just believed it because that is how you operate.

 

[tas8831]

The only testable evidence, supports observed microevolution of currently living organisms.
Everything beyond that is presupposition and assumption.

So you believe in "presupposition and assumption" since you think that species can derive from the level of the Family.

That is MACROevolution, sonny:

Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".​

That is from CreationWiki.

So you either do not know enough about evolution to grasp this, or you... well... there are no other options that I can see.

 

[gnostic]

You missed the entire point behind my post! Wow!
(whoosh!)

No, Hockeycowboy. That’s really all what you wrote:

Agreed. But it does indicate that there are classifications of animals.

That was my point. Why did you miss it?

Yes I know, you were referring to your earlier about “kinds” in Genesis:

In Genesis, does the Bible simply say, ‘God created the animals,’ or does it say He created the animals “according to their kinds”?

That’s meaningful, to add those words. It allows differing species to be categorized....I say it seems logical to make the demarcation, probably most within each family-level taxon, where the species share the most similarities, which natural selection could viably alter.

Kinds as given in Genesis, whether it be marine animals, birds, animals, is hardly meaningful, let alone be specific of the families and species.

Genesis 1’s “KINDS” would only be meaningful, if “kinds’” were to explain.

All Genesis does say fishes swim, birds with wings fly, land animals that walk or crawl, and the distinction between cattle and wild animals.

Who are these authors of Genesis? Are they (authors) men or God? Is that really the extent of their knowledge?

Even the simplest Iron Age man with very little education would know this, so I have to ask myself, are the 3 or 4 year-old children or just stupid?

Whoever wrote Genesis 1 don’t seem educated about nature at all.

Meaningful isn’t the word I would use about Genesis “kinds”.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't it interesting when they bring up disagreements - typically revolving around minutiae or minor details - among evolutionary researchers as some kind of indication that evolution is wrong or on the verge of collapse....

Yet they ignore the fact that there are OLD EARTH creationists and YOUNG EARTH creationists, whose interpretations of the SAME SOURCE differs by about 5 orders of magnitude....

Or the thousands of different denominations in general.

 

[Deeje]

@Hockeycowboy...you know you've touched a nerve when the replies are so desperate to prove you wrong.

LOL.

 

[tas8831]

@Hockeycowboy...you know you've touched a nerve when the replies are so desperate to prove you wrong.

LOL.

"Desperate" to corrects errors and falsehoods?

My but you project your failings onto others, don't you?

Too much jargon for you, Ms.Science-Expert?