Evolution is a fact?!

[tas8831]

Maybe Isaac Newton had old news when he said he knows gravity by...happenstance. maybe we'll evolve to fly off cliffs, maybe, you think? I can only guess what you'll say...my guess is by you might say: yes, why not?

Unable to address the issue, the creationist spews gibberish.
Shocking.

 

[tas8831]

Some animals float on rafts. I guess you think they evolved the rafts.

I guess you think they were created from nothing by the Hebrew tribal deity?

 

[tas8831]

Because it--the ToE-- has not 'proven' itself to me.

Who cares?
Who are you such that we should be concerned, and what is your background in the relevant sciences?

You are a creationist. What "proved" that to you? Your indoctrination since birth? Your preacher? A bad acid trip (there is a person who posts on here occasionally who basically admitted this on his personal blog)?

Obviously many believe it. Just to say (again), I did accept it in the past. Didn't question it for years, was a scholarship winner, accepted it..

Oh, well, SCHOLASHIP WINNER???? Why didn't you say so before??? Clearly you have amassed more than sufficient uber-knowledge that we should be so impressed with your bland dismissals and refusal to even deal with evidence on the matter!
Color me totally not convinced!

I take vaccines, I believe planes fly due to harnessing the forces of nature, but I no longer believe evolution is a truthful fact.

Truthful facts are the best kind.
What are the truthful facts for your position?

Does this mean I think mutations come from God? No, it does not. Does this mean that I think God evolves children born with zika virus? (No.)

Why would God "evolve" children with a virus?

I thought you said you won a scholarship?

 

[tas8831]

Humans are different in that respect than any other organisms insofar as I know.

Right... Scholarship.

Maybe you think eventually they can talk to humans and explain their thoughts to humans if they have any thoughts as to why they die? Or. .if they believe in, figured out, evolution.

Why would other animals 'evolve' to communicate with us? We are so special and advanced special creations (for which there is no evidence), why weren't we created to communicate with them? I mean other than them being possessed by demons?

 

[tas8831]

And you call that a fact of evolution??

That Scholarship you "won" - was it for obfuscation, diversionary tactics, projection, and dissembling?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess you think they were created from nothing by the Hebrew tribal deity?

It may not be the Hebrew deity, but perhaps we (i.e., whatever exists in the universe) were created from nothing (science does not deny it). That alone takes away the ultimate problem of 'what we arose from?' Otherwise the question persists. The Hebrew deity, but then what from the Hebrew deity (or any deity / deities of any religion) arose? So IMHO, Ex-nihilo is the only possible answer. Multi-universe theory, Zero-Energy universe. How? Don't ask me now. It will be decades / centuries before we come to know. This is a question for future generations.

Complete theory of what? Germ Theory is not concerned with the origins of germs for it is concerned with the origins of disease, just as the UTG doesn't care about the 'origin' of gravity (heck - they cannot even explain what gravity IS) for it is about how gravity affects objects.

Same for any germ or theory of gravity. The theists have their answer - Goddidit. If that does not satisfy you, then wait for science to progress to that extent. Don't be in a hurry. As I said, it take time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some ant species do this without a raft.

Hmm that's good. So maybe humans will evolve wings, you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

That Scholarship you "won" - was it for obfuscation, diversionary tactics, projection, and dissembling?

Why? Can't answer the questions with verifiable proof (except conjecture)? I mean, let's be honest. It's like religion. You want to believe it, you are convinced, that's your choice.

 

[YoursTrue]

Complete theory of what? Germ Theory is not concerned with the origins of germs for it is concerned with the origins of disease, just as the UTG doesn't care about the 'origin' of gravity (heck - they cannot even explain what gravity IS) for it is about how gravity affects objects.

Germs are germs. They're there. It's like meat is there but turns rancid. It doesn't develop flies. An experiment debunked that theory. Germs can mutate. So far humans or gorillas have not developed wings. Mutated wings?

 

[ratiocinator]

Please allow this scientifically illiterate person to gaze at a scientifically literate response.

Why would anybody bother? You've shown:-

1. You know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it.
2. You appear to have made no attempt to learn anything about it for yourself.
   
3. Despite your comprehensive ignorance of the subject, you've already made up your mind about it

Why would anybody try to educate somebody who is wilfully ignorant (of the subject) and irrational (thinking they can draw a conclusion from a position of ignorance)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hmm that's good. So maybe humans will evolve wings, you think?

I would not say 'it is impossible'. It all depends on environment. If we developed lungs from gills and hands from wings, we could, in a few hundred of millions years, develop wings again. Birds and humans, both belong to Phyllum Chordata. We are related. Chordates started their journey some 540 million years ago in the Cambrian Explosion.

Birds: Chordata / Sauropsida / Avemetatarsilia / Ornithurae / Aves
Humans: Chordata / Mammalia / Primates / Haplorhini / Simiiformes / Hominidae / Homininae / Hominini / Homo / Homo sepians / Homo sapiens sapiens

Sub-groups of Chordata: Cephalochordata, Pikaiidae, Olfactores / Vetulicolia, Tunicata, Vertebrata, Palaeospondylus, Zhongxiniscus

 

[tas8831]

Germs are germs. They're there.

Species are species, they're there. The ToE provided a mechanism for their changes through time. Pity that your position cannot remain consistent or logical.

It's like meat is there but turns rancid. It doesn't develop flies. An experiment debunked that theory. Germs can mutate. So far humans or gorillas have not developed wings. Mutated wings?

What a stupid thing to write.
Why would humans develop wings?

Your posts are like a child's.

 

[tas8831]

Why?

Why mention winning a scholarship other than to pretend to have some sort of ability to understand things that you clearly cannot?

Can't answer the questions with verifiable proof (except conjecture)?

You mean this 'question':

Maybe Isaac Newton had old news when he said he knows gravity by...happenstance. maybe we'll evolve to fly off cliffs, maybe, you think? I can only guess what you'll say...my guess is: yes, why not?​

Wow, great "question." Seems like the kind of question a scholarship winner would totally ask - especially one that implies sufficient understanding of the subject matter to have a scientific discussion about it.

The real shame is that you actually think that these dopey quips of yours are meaningful discourse.

I mean, let's be honest. It's like religion. You want to believe it, you are convinced, that's your choice.

Let's be really honest. I accept the implications of the evidence. I see no better explanation of the evidence. Thus, I accept it. I also accept that brainwashed religionists see themselves as being in possession of special knowledge and wit, when all they are actually in possession of is a child-like state of delusion. Your religion has not proven itself to me, thus I reject it.

 

[tas8831]

Maybe Isaac Newton had old news when he said he knows gravity by...happenstance. maybe we'll evolve to fly off cliffs, maybe, you think? I can only guess what you'll say...my guess is by you might say: yes, why not?

So, unable to answer this simple pair of questions:

Does Germ Theory have to include how germs came about? Does the Universal Theory of Gravitation have to include how gravity came about?​

the supposed scholarship winner engages in dopey rhetoric and dodges. How typical of the creationist.

 

[tas8831]

Please allow this scientifically illiterate person to gaze at a scientifically literate response.

OK - this is from the time I posted this in response to your similar request in January - actually, this is from the 3rd time I posted it for you and you had omitted any mention of it from any replies (which tells us much):

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:

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.
​

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."

 

[YoursTrue]

OK - this is from the time I posted this in response to your similar request in January - actually, this is from the 3rd time I posted it for you and you had omitted any mention of it from any replies (which tells us much):

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:

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.

So let me understand you. And thank you for that information (again). Are you saying that "genealogical relationships" (per the first analysis above) confirm the idea that evolution is a truthful fact asserting, implying, and verifying that evolution is a truthful, undeniable, and verifiable fact? In consequence, does cloning mean that evolution as explained by the theorists is a truthful, undeniable, and absolute fact?

 

[tas8831]

So let me understand you. And thank you for that information (again). Are you saying that "genealogical relationships" (per the first analysis above) confirm the idea that evolution is a truthful fact asserting, implying, and verifying that evolution is a truthful, undeniable, and verifiable fact?

Interesting that you focused on that - did you miss the actual context?

"Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains."

As indicated in bold in the post, the first set of references are dealing with assessing the viability and accuracy of the analytical methods. You realized that, right?

Back to your apparent dodge-set-up -
As much as we can see in scientific inquiry, yes. But a person that is scientifically literate would not even ask such a question, so I am sensing that you are simply trying to set up an escape of some sort, and will never actually deal with the evidence.

In consequence, does cloning mean that evolution as explained by the theorists is a truthful, undeniable, and absolute fact?

I see no reason to address a totally irrelevant attempt at diversion.

How about we just see if you are as scientifically literate as you pretend to be.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hmm that's good. So maybe humans will evolve wings, you think?

I doubt it, but we are possibly going to alter our genes in the future for various reasons, and hence doing for ourselves what nature might not be able to do - and hence evolving. Couldn't predict how this might go though.

 

[YoursTrue]

And what is the impetus for not accepting it? Prejudice?

No. The irrationality of determining that all life came about by evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting that you focused on that - did you miss the actual context?

"Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains."

As indicated in bold in the post, the first set of references are dealing with assessing the viability and accuracy of the analytical methods. You realized that, right?

Back to your apparent dodge-set-up -
As much as we can see in scientific inquiry, yes. But a person that is scientifically literate would not even ask such a question, so I am sensing that you are simply trying to set up an escape of some sort, and will never actually deal with the evidence.

I see no reason to address a totally irrelevant attempt at diversion.

How about we just see if you are as scientifically literate as you pretend to be.

Known genealogical relationships does not mean that evolution causing all the forms of life is...a fact--a truthful fact.