Evidence For And Against Evolution

[tas8831]

It is up to you to provide an argument demonstrating design and fine tuning by design. You asserted a designer and fine tuning.

Anything? Anything at all? Hello? Is there anyone there? Hello?

So amazing how these folks think the fallacious false dichotomy argument is actually the best they can come up with...

 

[Jose Fly]

That is the only victory I have ever seen. ID fails in science. It fails in education. It fails in the courts.

Yup. In those arenas they can't get away with playing their games, ignoring questions, and saying "I don't wan't to talk about it".

The only place it survives is in the minds of creationists and they have to bear false witness to keep it alive.

It's fascinating to watch, isn't it? I keep wondering how someone can engage in such obvious dishonesty, yet never question why they have to do so in order to advocate creationism. But I suppose if one's religious beliefs, and by extension much of one's self-worth, are at stake, you'll do whatever is necessary to preserve it. The alternative is just too devastating.

 

[Skwim]

Yup. In those arenas they can't get away with playing their games, ignoring questions, and saying "I don't wan't to talk about it".


It's fascinating to watch, isn't it? I keep wondering how someone can engage in such obvious dishonesty, yet never question why they have to do so in order to advocate creationism. But I suppose if one's religious beliefs, and by extension much of one's self-worth, are at stake, you'll do whatever is necessary to preserve it. The alternative is just too devastating.

And the thing is, the creationists position is so bankrupt that it's never based on what they believe, the Bible, but on what evolutionists believe, science. Their False Dichotomy argument being that "If I can show evolution is wrong then creationism wins by default." And, of course, it wouldn't.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup. In those arenas they can't get away with playing their games, ignoring questions, and saying "I don't wan't to talk about it".


It's fascinating to watch, isn't it? I keep wondering how someone can engage in such obvious dishonesty, yet never question why they have to do so in order to advocate creationism. But I suppose if one's religious beliefs, and by extension much of one's self-worth, are at stake, you'll do whatever is necessary to preserve it. The alternative is just too devastating.

It is fascinating to see a member of group that claims the moral high ground, use such immoral means to defend their position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So amazing how these folks think the fallacious false dichotomy argument is actually the best they can come up with...

It is more amazing to see them continue to use these fallacies and deceit, despite it being revealed for what is by so many and so frequently. We have only to wait for them to leave return to see them all again. The heavy rotation of science denial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And the thing is, the creationists position is so bankrupt that it's never based on what they believe, the Bible, but on what evolutionists believe, science. Their False Dichotomy argument that "If I can show that evolution is wrong then creationism wins by default." And, of course, it wouldn't.

.

That is it in a nutshell. They argue against science and not for their personal view. Even if they can't or won't admit it, this reveals that even they recognize the strength and validity of science.

 

[halbhh]

It is up to you to provide an argument demonstrating design and fine tuning by design. You asserted a designer and fine tuning.

Anything? Anything at all? Hello? Is there anyone there? Hello?

YEC is just wrong factually, and there's a lot of just wrong factually around, often spread in the internet. It's not really of a lot of moment, in the end.

But I understand trying to shake some sense into people! I've done my fair share of trying over the years.

(a needed fyi here: my degree is in engineering physics, and I read in professional journals and also in high level science writing ever since about a hobby interest: astrophysics, broadly, just all related fields, so it's been a lot of reading over the decades, and that's just so you don't try to explain stuff to me I already know of course )

So, this could be interesting, even if you don't have a degree in the hard sciences, but find cosmology interesting. This is the first article, and one can also read the follow up articles there at Quantamagazine. It's a nice site for substantive writing without esoteric maths. --

I'd better point out I do not -- get that, 'not' -- consider this evidence of God, but it is on the other hand sorta what you asked for, but from another field: (the article is a lot of fun for people that want to understand what's been happening in physics, and the current status quo is largely unchanged over the last 6 years, but you can get updates and hear about new speculations)

Is Nature Unnatural?
Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? ....

Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis [or...Is Nature Unnatural?] | Quanta Magazine

(note that it appears still that multiverse hypotheses may be permanently untestable, without any way to ever choose between competing ones that contradict each other, etc. Picking one and actually believing it could be...well, "theology" as some have said, already. Multiverse ideas may just be....speculation that comes to nothing. It's a fascinating moment. A moment that is going on for years, on and on.)

Here's one of the update articles for those that want more. A key theory idea "supersymmetry" is starting to look as if perhaps if it does show up (if it's not already just dead in the water) very unlike what was expected....or maybe just wrong, some are thinking. What's left?.... A real feeling, or to many a real challenge, to the idea we understand nature that well. We are realizing on a very basic level a lot less is known than was thought just 10 years ago.
What No New Particles Means for Physics | Quanta Magazine

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No?

Ok so two organisms can have the same mutation in the same gene snd in the same loci..... Agree? Yes or no?

It doesn't matter to the point.
That point being: convergent evolution is not the same as identical evolution.
Convergence is about the end-product. Not the path towards it.

And in case of echolocation, the path towards it was different.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes if the assertion is granted by both, you don't have to prove that assertion,

LOL!!!

Sounds like somebody needs to be educated on the concept of the burden of proof.
It doesn't magically disappear when people don't care about being rationally justified in their beliefs and "just believe" the assertion.

To be rationally justified in accepting an argument / claim as plausible / accurate / true, that claim must meet its burden of proof.

Yes, people can not care about the burden of proof and be happy with irrationaly justification to accept claims. You seem to be a fine example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asserted that it is the best explanation

Yes, many times.

What you didn't do however is demonstrate how it's a good explanation - or an explanation, full stop.

, better than any other naturalistic explanation

Before we can evaluate that, you're going to have to present your explanation and the evidence for it. Because as it stands, we have no clue how "good" or "bad" your "explanation" is, because you haven't given us anything that can be evaluated.

All we have is a bare claim. And that, obviously, is not enough to constitute an explanation. It's. Just. A. Claim.

,..... I haven't claimed that the explanation is true (just that it is the best) if you disagree please let me know if there is a better explanation

How can we disagree (or agree) if you refuse to give the details of your explanation and the evidence for it?

To be able to evaluate the usefullness / accuracy / merrit of your explanation, we're going to have to need a wee bit more then just the bare assertions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does all this mean?

Just another attempt to weasle out of his burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the existing explanation that you accept?

Concerning why the cosmologial constants and forces are the way they are?

None. There isn't any.
I don't know.


You claim you have an explanation. Maybe you should share it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When we all tire of his game, he can pretend he argued 'evolutionists' to a standstill. Which, dishonest as it is, is the only victory there is for a creationist in the controversy they manufactured to begin with.

Yep.

Classic case of pidgeon chess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I don't know which is the existing for FT that you accept

Then you couldn't possibly know that your mysterious god-dun-it explanation is "better" then his.

It's starting to become embarassing, the amount of lies you get caught with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is it in a nutshell. They argue against science and not for their personal view. Even if they can't or won't admit it, this reveals that even they recognize the strength and validity of science.

I must give credit to @leroy though.
He does it far more blatantly then most.

Almost like he's not even trying to hide it.
He'll off course deny it till he's blue in the face though. And then some.

 

[leroy]

It doesn't matter to the point.
That point being: convergent evolution is not the same as identical evolution.
Convergence is about the end-product. Not the path towards it.

And in case of echolocation, the path towards it was different.

Remember that I told you that your intend is to argue like a flat earther?

1 adopt a position of extreme and irrational skepticism

2 avoid the burden proof

3 keep your position vague and ambiguous

4 avoid direct answers

In this case you went to alternative #4 "avoid direct answers"

My point is and has always been that two independent organisms can have the same mutation (s) in the same gene in the same loci....... Do you agree with this statement yes or no?......


(This is called "genotipic Convergence")


Honestly I don't understand why are you bringing up your semantic game on "convergent and identical evolution"

The fact is that 2 organisms can have the same mutations in the same genes and in the same loci, weather if you want to call it "convergent evolution" or "identical evolution" is irrelevant. Feel free to use any word that you find convinient, but scientists call this" genotipic Convergence" so why not using that term?

 

[tas8831]

Yes if the assertion is granted by both, you don't have to prove that assertion,

But nobody accepts your assertions.

 

[leroy]

OK:

"Comparing the counts of parallel substitutions with the ΔSSLS evidence for convergence at each locus, we found extremely good correspondence between the two measures; although 551 loci lacked any parallel substitutions for H1 (441 under H2)..."

Ok, no parallel evolution on those particular 551 loci.

But the article describes 200 other loci where parallel substitutions occured

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Remember that I told you that your intend is to argue like a flat earther?


In this case you went to alternative #4 "avoid direct answers"

Your question here has been answered multiple times by multiple people. Just a couple posts ago, @tas8831 also answered you. He even quoted the paper.

The stubbornness, is strong in you.

My point is and has always been that two independent organisms can have the same mutation (s) in the same gene in the same loci....... Do you agree with this statement yes or no?......

No, that's what you transformed your point into after you were backed into a corner and tried to weasle out of it.
Your initial claim was that bats and whales have identical mutations in over 200 genes.

You were wrong. Accept it.

Honestly I don't understand why are you bringing up your semantic game on "convergent and identical evolution"

I know. That's kind of the problem here. You not understanding.
As I said, it might help if you first inform yourself.

The fact is that 2 organisms can have the same mutations in the same genes and in the same loci, weather if you want to call it "convergent evolution" or "identical evolution" is irrelevant. Feel free to use any word that you find convinient, but scientists call this" genotipic Convergence" so why not using that term?

I was just talking about your initial claim about the 200 loci and the article you misrepresented.
You then tried to make it about other stuff.


ps: found any evidence in support of your ID argument yet?

 

[leroy]

OK:
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 - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

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 hereby CONCLUDE 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]. "​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. No molecular phylogenetic analyses have produced results that counter the results of these.

Feel free to provide evidence for magic creation of a man from dust 6-10,000 years ago.

Imagine a creationist that can make a single argument without PLAGIARIZING creationist hacks.
It has to be imagined, because I have yet to encounter a creationist that can actually make their own arguments without at least paraphrasing other creationists.

Tell us all - did you plagiarize that crap from THIS CLOWN, or THIS ONE, who quoted the other? Reported.

I am pretty sure that you do not understand any of that, so I will debunk it for the sake of those that can in a subsequent post.


Sure. Until there is a good reason to think otherwise - and no, ReMine and Batten's dopey slogans do not count.


Unless you are Donny Batten, YEC, those are NOT "your" numbers.
I guess you folks like to ignore that many held that Haldane's dilemma was never really a dilemma:

Warren Ewens interview:

AP: The mention of Crow brings up a further question I had. Were many biologists concerned about the problems of genetic load and mutation load at the time you began your graduate career?


WE: [...]
A second form of the load concept was introduced by the British biologist-mathematician Haldane who claimed, in 1957, that substitutions in a Darwinian evolutionary process could not proceed at more than a certain comparatively slow rate, because if they were to proceed at a faster rate, there would be an excessive “substitutional load.” Since Haldane was so famous, that concept attracted a lot of attention. In particular, Crow and Kimura made various substitutional load calculations around 1960, that is at about that time that I was becoming interested in genetics.
Perhaps the only disagreement I ever had with Crow concerned the substitutional load, because I never thought that the calculations concerning this load, which he and others carried out, were appropriate. From the very start, my own calculations suggested to me that Haldane’s arguments were misguided and indeed erroneous, and that there is no practical upper limit to the rate at which substitutions can occur under Darwinian natural selection.​

I already explained the problem with that dopey argument you plagiarized - you are just ignoring, like most dishonest creationists do.

First, Donny gets the argument wrong.
Second, he sets up a strawman scenario.
Third, he doesn't seem to understand population genetics.
Fourth, he did not address the questions I asked you, such that his strawman even had hypothetical merit:[/COLOR]

1. What traits the human-chimp ancestor had in the first place
2. how many mutations would have been needed in order to get a distinctly human trait - say, upper limb proportion - from the LCA of humans and chimps
2a. How you discovered what the ancestral state was, seeing as we do not know what the exact ancestral taxon was
2b. how you determined the number of beneficial mutations needed to produce that change
etc.
​

If you do not know what traits the ancestor had, and you have no idea how many mutations would have been "required" top alter those traits into the traits modern humans have, how on earth can you or Donny Batten or electrician ReMine possibly declare that number - or ANY number of mutations - to be 'too few' and be taken seriously?

Ok so what exactly is your position

1 that 500,000 benefitial mutations are enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans

2 that there was enough time for more mutations?

It is a good opportunity to teach me a lesson and justify your claim, so please show that 5M years is enough time to account for the differences between chimps and humans trough the process of random mutations and natural selection ..... Perhaps I will end up learning how us someone suppose to justify claims