TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
My guess concerning what @tas8831 will say in response to this post of yours, is that it is completely irrelevant and random as a response to the post you are quoting.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is a fact?!
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
My guess concerning what @tas8831 will say in response to this post of yours, is that it is completely irrelevant and random as a response to the post you are quoting.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Humans most definitely are not set on an evolutionary path to grow wings. There are exactly zero selection parameters that even hint to such.
So why would you think humans might grow wings in the future?
No.
It serves no evolutionary purpose at all.
Makes no sense again.
First, humans have no need at all to evolve traits to stay under water longer. We are land animals.
Having said that, we have examples of land crawling mammals that evolved into purely aquatic creatures over the course of millions of years: whales, dolphins,...
None of them "evolved gills" again.
The questions you ask reveal, once again, deep rooted ignorance on how evolution works and what the mechanism actually is.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The problem is that it is the equivalent of a person with such extremely weakened muscles after being bad ridden for 5 years, who demands someone to teach him how to run before he can even stand up straight.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why do you keep pointing out that humans and gorilla's haven't developed wings?
Why do you think they should? Or why do you even think they might?
What point do you think you are making by saying these things?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
So bonobos had a need to move into something else? Or is it that those projectors are not sure?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Asserting that a theory is irrational from your position of total ignorance of said theory (as evidenced by your posts here) is irrational.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Does this question make any sense at all to anyone?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I understand that. I have a different viewpoint in that I don't share the same opinion as the nay-sayers about the validity of the Bible. It makes sense to me. Not that I understand everything, but I believe it is a rational and believable. Just as so many do not contest the theory of evolution as if it is true absolu, no matter what, I go with the Bible.
Perhaps you misunderstand. If the environment changes, then those most likely to thrive in such will probably be those who produce sufficient offspring to survive (as a species) - others might not. Hence such tends to favour those with the characteristics which enables them to survive - in whatever form this takes. That appears to be what the theory of evolution describes - these being fittest for the environment in which they live. Random mutations tend to account for much else - as to why some are more endowed over others, or simply in having those genes that favour them.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
This again does not necessarily mean that God is not involved in giving life and creating life on the earth. The fact that humans are genetically similar in some respects to bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas, etc., does not mean that they came about by evolution. There is so much difference between humans and bonobos, it makes me rustle a little when I see attempts to say there's not much difference. We cannot buzz around like bees, we cannot swing like chimpanzees from trees, that is true, and they are wonderful in these respects. Humans, who have the capacity to develop writing, yet chimpanzees have not. Chimpanzees, although having fingers (I use them as an example) do not have the capacity to develop writing and pass on anything that might have happened between them and God, and/or their ancestors.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually it does. You might as well try to deny that "You are the father!" on the Maury Povich Show.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Evolution in a human expressed thesis.
Human.
Quotes medical bible was healer human advice. Life evolved as it healed. Human evolution in God earth status.
I confessed in human science that I irradiated UFO anti the atmospheric gas spirit heavens. Life mutated.
De evolved healthy human pre owned life.
I wrote a document of my science confession as a once pre lived higher healthier human life and body. The human father creator of it. Baby to adult man father. Not original spiritual father.
A confession.
I genetically de evolved our life cell human. Mutated life in its alienation anti attack. Ground nation fusion changes.
Evolution cooling allowed water plus microbiomes to return in oxygenated heavens held to ground by cold gas amassing above our heads. Life evolved it's mutations. Status human evolution from a mutation.
Healing and miraculous.
Human.
Quotes medical bible was healer human advice. Life evolved as it healed. Human evolution in God earth status.
I confessed in human science that I irradiated UFO anti the atmospheric gas spirit heavens. Life mutated.
De evolved healthy human pre owned life.
I wrote a document of my science confession as a once pre lived higher healthier human life and body. The human father creator of it. Baby to adult man father. Not original spiritual father.
A confession.
I genetically de evolved our life cell human. Mutated life in its alienation anti attack. Ground nation fusion changes.
Evolution cooling allowed water plus microbiomes to return in oxygenated heavens held to ground by cold gas amassing above our heads. Life evolved it's mutations. Status human evolution from a mutation.
Healing and miraculous.
But as I mentioned earlier (but not explicitly), our ancestors, before written languages, didn't have so many differences from many other species - being hunter-gatherers - so all that we are today is the result of our languages, our subsequent thinking abilities, and our inventive minds. The explosion of knowledge resulting from all this is sufficient as to why we appear so different from other life, when in fact we are not so very different. It's understandable that many will see God as being a reason as to why this might be so, if they even recognise the process of evolution, but it is not a requisite for such when the theory of evolution is a good enough explanation in itself.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If life exists separate to God. As a human knows no human is one first a planet and stone. Then teaching falsified information on behalf of human groups.
Why the word diction said diction ARY.
A sophist a scientist who used words in a cunning contrivance as a taught human statement.
We are all humans.
Science a human choice never existed until it was practiced.
Science lied.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Explain the "irrationality" of it please.
And answer it like the scholarship-winner you claim to be - with valid evidence.. Then explain why you think strawman fallacies are a good way to win an argument.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No - but what you just wrote DOES mean that you utterly ignored the post beyond looking for something you could grab out-of-context and pretend that you had found an 'out.'
This time - this will be what, the 5th time? - I will make the parts that you seem determined to ignore un-ignorable (not that it will matter to you - you have a 'faith' to protect):
I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):
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:
Please note - these first few citations are about testing the METHODS of molecular phylogenetic analysis for reliability/accuracy/etc. - NOT to test whether to not evolution can explain "all life"...
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.
Please note that the above rationale for providing the previous 3 references clearly indicated why they were presented - and also quite clearly show that you did not read this far down (too many science words?), or you did and couldn't understand it (quite likely), or did, understood where this was going, and decided to go into 'desperate creationist mode.'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:
Please note that this heading clearly indicates that the methods tested in the previous references - tested on "knowns" and shown to be accurate and reliable - are now going to be applied to 'unknowns'. A quite rational scientific series of events. I can see why you were afraid to read beyond your out of context attempt to ignore the fact that yours is a failing position to hold, but come on - we can see it in your words and antics. There is no hiding it.
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.
ADDED IN EDIT:
Funny thing - I had actually provided this SEVEN TIMES in that thread - FOUR times specifically in response to YOU, each time your ignored it or dismissed it. So much for your "scientific literacy".
Sept.25, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Dec.12, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.5, 2021
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.21, 2021
- replied with "You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation."
Most telling...Funny thing - I had actually provided this SEVEN TIMES in that thread - FOUR times specifically in response to YOU, each time your ignored it or dismissed it. So much for your "scientific literacy".
Sept.25, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Dec.12, 2019
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.5, 2021
- no response at all (though you did reply to other of my posts)
Jan.21, 2021
- replied with "You asked a question about dust and I ask you to think about why it wouldn't be a result of creation."
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Just a guess - because he cannot handle answering questions honestly or sensibly?
Astrophile
Active Member
If we don't share Miocene-epoch common ancestors with bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas, what Miocene animals are we descended from? If you can give an answer to this question that is supported by evidence, I shall accept it; if not, I shall continue to accept the scientific answers
ecco
Veteran Member
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The scientific answers keep changing. So now -- from my examination of the changing episodes of the latest reflections by many scientists insofar as evolution is concerned, x-rays and film were invented rather recently. Before that, and rather recently as reflected by the scientific community insofar as human history is concerned, writing is fairly recent. (about 5,000 years.) So records of changing forms of animals other than skulls or bone fragments just aren't accounted for in writing by human observation. Even though -- writing is a rather new development according to the major scientific establishment of human development.