Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Hockeycowboy]

I noticed that you have moved your arbitrary borders around evolution to include orders now instead of evolution within families alone. Looks like we are making some headway with you.

Lol, I wondered if someone might pick up on that!

I just don't want to arbitrarily jump to a conclusion on this. It could be, in some instances of animal groups, that evolution within an order might fit the evidence better. After all, adjustments are constantly being made to taxonomy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What is the basis for your claim? What is the evidence that evolution would be inhibited (somewhat?) under one and not the other? When was the last time you looked into the views geologists hold on uniformitarianism and catastrophism?

First question: reasoning.
Second ": Common sense.
Third ": Yesterday.

 

[gnostic]

In the Jewish arrangement of days, mornings have no bearing on a 24-hr day. So the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning", cannot be taken as meaning a literal day.
In fact, read Genesis 1:5....there, Yom means the light part of a 24-hr day, not the whole day.

You are being dishonest again.

I am not using the argument of 24-hour day. I using what Genesis 1 say about yom, "there was evening and there was morning", and that's a period of a day. Verse 5 also talk of day and night, light and darkness, which give you indication of day.

And it is repeated again after verse 1:5 - 1:8, 13, 19, 23 & 31.

Try to read the context of the sentences and the paragraphs, instead of make up something the passages don't say.

This is exactly why I no longer trust theists, especially CREATIONISTS, with interpreting the bible without bloody twisting them out of context. And you are doing exactly as I would predict you, make excuses and taking everything written out of context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First of all, become a little more proficient yourself, before you start telling me what I do or don't understand.... I've probably studied this much longer than you have. Point:


In the Jewish arrangement of days, mornings have no bearing on a 24-hr day. So the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning", cannot be taken as meaning a literal day.
In fact, read Genesis 1:5....there, Yom means the light part of a 24-hr day, not the whole day.

Again, Yom can mean indefinite periods of time, too. I pretty much proved that, in my previous post.

Not to me you have not. But if you look at Genesis as allegory, it does not matter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First question: reasoning.

Explain it. Reasoning would not be the basis of your claim, but the means to derive it. Why so evasive?

Second ": Common sense.

Explain that. Why so evasive?

Third ": Yesterday.

Better look again at more recent material.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, I wondered if someone might pick up on that!

I just don't want to arbitrarily jump to a conclusion on this. It could be, in some instances of animal groups, that evolution within an order might fit the evidence better. After all, adjustments are constantly being made to taxonomy.

You are fixing arbitrary limits. Your new limits are no better at explaining biblical kind than previously.

Changes that are carried out in taxonomy are based on evidence and testing. They are not arbitrary.

 

[tas8831]

interesting article:

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

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

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.)

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

*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.)

it is awesome how you "forget" how your discussions on certain topics had gone when you tried them out before...

Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

 

[tas8831]

Hi @Hockeycowboy, I see you're back.

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]

So @Hockeycowboy, 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.[/QUOTE]

 

[rational experiences]

You are being dishonest again.

I am not using the argument of 24-hour day. I using what Genesis 1 say about yom, "there was evening and there was morning", and that's a period of a day. Verse 5 also talk of day and night, light and darkness, which give you indication of day.

And it is repeated again after verse 1:5 - 1:8, 13, 19, 23 & 31.

Try to read the context of the sentences and the paragraphs, instead of make up something the passages don't say.

This is exactly why I no longer trust theists, especially CREATIONISTS, with interpreting the bible without bloody twisting them out of context. And you are doing exactly as I would predict you, make excuses and taking everything written out of context.

There was evening and there was morning, it would equate so there was nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

it is awesome how you "forget" how your discussions on certain topics had gone when you tried them out before...

Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

One of the most amazing phenomena on the internet. Forget which debunked creationist arguments are being used. Just wait, it will be repeated as if it were never before seen.

Or wait and some totally new creationist poster will come blazing onto a forum with ancient arguments and recycled fallacies as if they were novel thoughts that had never been raised and refuted.

It is the great circle of lies. Hakuna Matata.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

An assertion based on belief, but one that you and your gang have yet to provide a single iota of evidence to support it.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

It did not just evolve and science would not describe it as if it were magic or some belief-based assertion. The evidence indicates that it evolved and nothing but denial and obfuscation has been provided or even offered to say otherwise.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

Agreed. But that belief and those believers are not evidence of a Creator, intelligent or otherwise. That is evidence about the believers and what they believe.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What makes the most sense is to observe, test and understand that which can be observed, to understand, to learn and not make claims based on that which has not been observed. After all, someone that believes differently than you do, can have an entirely different version of creation that is as valid as yours. That is what you are attempting to do here by establishing a false dichotomy between belief and understanding based on evidence.

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

You are incredulous. You find all this incredible. I find it incredible and beautiful too. But that is no basis to deny science. There is much I do not understand, but that does not mean it is not understood or that explanations based on sound principles, evidence and science are wrong. That is another attempt of yours to use fallacy as a means to argue.

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

No. Nature did not fluke these. It could be clever and deliberate creation, but there is no evidence for that. There is evidence that these creatures evolved and that their present condition is the result of thousands and millions of years of natural selection and evolution. You cannot refute that, so we get these misleading attempts to magnify your credulity and personal belief as the answer.

What you never say is that the reason you are in denial of science is that you are a belief-based and emotional thinker that is prompted by the doctrine of your sect to deny science, evidence and evidence-based thinking.

 

[Bear Wild]

One of the most amazing phenomena on the internet. Forget which debunked creationist arguments are being used. Just wait, it will be repeated as if it were never before seen.

Or wait and some totally new creationist poster will come blazing onto a forum with ancient arguments and recycled fallacies as if they were novel thoughts that had never been raised and refuted.

It is the great circle of lies. Hakuna Matata.

To add to this I really like, how as so well demonstrated in that broadcast, if there is ever disagreement in the science community the whole theory must be correct. The influence of epigenetic studies has questioned previous views and opened up new ways of understanding evolution. What is sadly lacking in the ID arguments is the power to question beliefs? Look at how disagreements in science have only lead to a better understanding of our world. The questioning of the "black box radiation" opened the world to quantum and relativity theory, continents fitting together lead to plate tectonics, and now epigenetics opens up new ways of understanding evolution. Those who propose epigenetics are not throwing out what was known before but creating new ways of understanding evolution. This only strengthens the theory of evolution which make the broadcast so amusing in that the speakers were introducing information which supports evolution. Unfortunately misrepresentation of information can mislead.
Oh well the game is on, the challenge remains and we go forward.

 

[Bear Wild]

I came across this today....its a Flower Mantis.....beautifully designed to be camouflaged on the flowers it lives on.

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

This creature is as beautiful as the flowers that it walks on.....so what makes the most sense....deliberate and thoughtful creation....or just an accident of nature?

What about this one...

Who could imagine that such beauty could be hidden under a living leaf?

Or this guy who just perfectly blends in with his surroundings....?

How about a bit of floating seaweed?

Spot the owl...

Chameleons are just incredible...

Did nature just fluke these? Or was this camouflage clever and deliberate creation?

What perfect examples of evolution! All of these designs are what would be expected from natural selection, genetic variation and now I will include epigenetics.

Nature is amazing and must be protected. Maybe we can at least agree on this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...ancient arguments and recycled fallacies...

Yet, where is your concrete evidence?

“More than likely” and “probably” are not scientific terms....they simply reveal assumptions.

And “must have”s are just based on circular reasoning in favor of certain biases.

It is the great circle of lies.

Yeah, we’ll see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet, where is your concrete evidence?

“More than likely” and “probably” are not scientific terms....they simply reveal assumptions.

And “must have”s are just based on circular reasoning in favor of certain biases.




Yeah, we’ll see.

Eh? What are you going on about?

Concrete evidence of what specifically?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What you never say is that the reason you are in denial of science is that you are a belief-based and emotional thinker that is prompted by the doctrine of your sect to deny science, evidence and evidence-based thinking.

No, not at all. What we say — what empirical science supports — is that specified information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it.

To think so, is fantasy.....fantasy with an agenda, as I stated before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet, where is your concrete evidence?

“More than likely” and “probably” are not scientific terms....they simply reveal assumptions.

And “must have”s are just based on circular reasoning in favor of certain biases.




Yeah, we’ll see.

Seen it.

From your post, it appears you are suggesting a knowledge of the assumptions associated with the theory. Could you enlighten the rest of us and relate them to your claims above?

If your sect did not demand that you reject biology, would you still maintain your rejection?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, not at all. What we say — what empirical science supports — is that specified information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it.

To think so, is fantasy.....fantasy with an agenda, as I stated before.

You are stating fantasy with an agenda. That is established.

There is no evidence for the existence of an intelligence behind the diversity of living things or snowflakes. You have never presented any evidence to demonstrate that one is there or even required.

Science DOES NOT support the existence of a designer. There is no empirical evidence for one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, not at all. What we say — what empirical science supports — is that specified information never arranges itself into functionally complex systems, without a mind behind it.

To think so, is fantasy.....fantasy with an agenda, as I stated before.

Humans designing and creating windmills, cars, computers, paintings, dog breeds, jewelry and radio programs are evidence of human design and creation. Not of the existence of a designer. Your argument fails.