Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Subduction Zone]

I hope we haven’t veered too far from the intent of the OP. Oh well.


Well “…the stone the builders rejected…”

Aren’t most, if not all, scientific hypotheses “ad hoc” (for this)?

My model is us. We are communicating. Irrational from a separate entity standpoint, but not from a singular mental reality standpoint. “Our father who art in heaven…”: mental genesis.

So, if something is always true, there can be no scientific proofs of it. Awkward.

No, what make ad hoc ideas worthless is that they are unfalsifiable. Hypothesis are the opposite of that.

Thanks for admitting that as I predicted that you have no reliable evidence.

 

[WalterTrull]

No, what make ad hoc ideas worthless is that they are unfalsifiable. Hypothesis are the opposite of that.

Thanks for admitting that as I predicted that you have no reliable evidence.

You're very welcome.

 

[ecco]

You have a theory that "our father is in heaven". When are you going to begin posting evidence to support that theory?

Actually the evidence is there all the time. Mostly, it's misinterpreted though. I've posted before my personal views about easy proofs in the past. We all die: ridiculous. We are aware of each other even communicate with each other.: preposterous.
J.C..was pretty good with the showy stuff. Caught a lot of attention. Proved what I'm talking about. Still mostly misinterpreted. Rats. Boy would I like to have the words. Maybe, Maybe.

Saying "It's there all the time" isn't posting evidence. Saying it's misrepresented isn't posting evidence. Your personal views are not evidence.

So, when are you going to begin posting evidence to support your theory that "our father is in heaven"?

 

[ecco]

Assuming that this genetic material arose by random mutations, one would have to assume that bats and dolphins received the exact same mutations in the exact same genes 200 times.

Who would have to make that assumption? Moreover, who actually made that assumption? You? Another fundamentalist?

 

[tas8831]

Which began with the alleged precursor organism of all life. The evolution of chemicals i.e. changing characteristics, is not considered. The source of the information in the genes of every organism is irrelevant.

it IS irrelevant, since the 'information' doesn't need to 'get into' genes - the 'information' in genes is a post-hoc metaphor.

Duh.

 

[tas8831]

You entire answer was based on a strawman, we are not talking about 2 organisms with echolocation and period. We are talking about 2 organisms that have a similar system caused by the SAME genetic material. It really is like finding a mammal with feathers.

One question

Would a mammal with feathers be a problem for evolution? I am assuming that your answer would be yes, because it would be very unlikely for a mammal to evolve feathers (with the same genes that birds use for feathers)…well we have the same situation here.


Assuming that this genetic material arose by random mutations, one would have to assume that bats and dolphins received the exact same mutations in the exact same genes 200 times.

This is a problem for Darwinism and not FOR ID, because we are dealing with statistical improbability, it would be improbable if we are dealing with random mutations, but if mutations where somehow guided of predetermined by an intelligent designer, then any statistical improbability becomes irrelevant.

Then why don't ALL animals have this same echolocation apparatus?

Why the total arbitrariness of creation?

 

[tas8831]

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

"Amino acids aren´ life, they carry no information, very specific acids and proteins carry out the instructions of DNA through RNA in operating the machinery of a cell. The 9 as a result of Miller Urey are meaningless. Miller in a recent interview admits the experiment was a failure."

Never got a link or a citation for that "recent interview".

Shmogie is unreliable and not so honest.

 

[tas8831]

can you show a single peer reviewd article that concludes that the statement is true beyond reasonable doubt?

If you understand the science, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lots of unreasonable doubts. From people that do not understand the evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Have you ever noticed how most scientific evidence seems to be begging the question?

No, i really haven't.

I HAVE noticed that all claims re: creation rely solely on the bible.

 

[tas8831]

The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt

Can you show one PR article that shows creationism is true?

You ask the question a child would ask, then wonder why your child's question is not taken seriously.

 

[tas8831]

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

Show us 5 examples.

 

[tas8831]

In the context of this thread every time I use the term evolution I mean what was defined as evolution in the first post of this thread. (Unless I clarify otherwise)




The articles that you provided show at most that the process of random mutations and natural selection is responsible for some of the diversity that we observe, but none of then show that this process is responsible for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe.

Which is not a big deal, even the most extremist irrational and fanatic YEC accept that this process is responsible for some of the diversity of life

Where is the evidence that shows that the process of random mutations and natural selection are responsible for all (or most) of the diversity of life ?

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. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Flat earth theory is beinign discussed in the scientific literature ? is that what you are saying? Care to provide an example?

Natrual Genetic Engeneerignis is just an alternative model (hypothesis) just like the neodarwinian model that states that all the diversity of life is the product of a process of random mutation + natural selection is also just a hypothesis that may or may not be true

Evolution by natural seleciton has been promoted from mere hypothesis to well supported theory for a while now...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You entire answer was based on a strawman, we are not talking about 2 organisms with echolocation and period. We are talking about 2 organisms that have a similar system caused by the SAME genetic material. It really is like finding a mammal with feathers.

You keep claiming this... It just ain't true.
For starters whale and bats product the soundwaves in completely different ways.
The only thing where they overlap is in a single gene called prestin, which is present in all mammals and is involved in the capturing of sound by the ears. They both share mutations that result in a very similar protein, which allows them to hear the ultrasonic rebound echo's.

This is one gene involved in only one thing, and it's a gene that ALL mammals have and in which it performs the same function accross the board. It's not surprising that both species underwent similar changes in the very gene that's responsible for regulating the hearable frequences, as all the selection pressure would focus on that.

This is 1 gene, that's even present in all mammals. Not 200.

Would a mammal with feathers be a problem for evolution?

If the underlying genetic sequences that build said feathers are identical, then finding a mammal species with those genetic sequences would be a problem, yes.

I am assuming that your answer would be yes, because it would be very unlikely for a mammal to evolve feathers (with the same genes that birds use for feathers)…well we have the same situation here.

We do not. As has been explained countless times now.

Assuming that this genetic material arose by random mutations, one would have to assume that bats and dolphins received the exact same mutations in the exact same genes 200 times.

No.

This is a problem for Darwinism and not FOR ID

No, the only problem here, is your strawman.

, because we are dealing with statistical improbability

No, we are dealing with arguments based on false premises.

, it would be improbable if we are dealing with random mutations, but if mutations where somehow guided of predetermined by an intelligent designer, then any statistical improbability becomes irrelevant.

yes, once you allow for "designer magic", then all data becomes irrelevant, because whatever data you encounter (or don't encounter), you could just shrug your shoulders and assert "well, that's how the designer made it..."

Unfortunatly though, science and explanation doesn't function by mere assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Isn’t the first cause a change?

No.

Namely a change from nothing to something.

In terms of science, absolutely no, because in science there is no evidence that there was every 'nothing.'

Is it scientific claiming to understand something without having an explanation for the source of it’s existence?

Science claims no such thing. Without an explanation and Unknowns are simply unknowns and not having an explanation without any effort to 'argue from ignorance.'

It is far more common for theological apologist to argue for an explanation claiming to understand when there is no evidence for an explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The “hearing gene” is present in all mammals, but a variation of this gene allows for echolocation

More correctly: ..allows for hearing the ultra sonic frequencies of the rebound echo's.
So it regulates what frequencies are detectable and which aren't, by fiddling with the cells that cover this.

, both bats and dolphins have the same variation of that gene………this variation is absent in the rest of the mammals including those that are closely related to bats and those that are closely related to dolphins……this implies that dolphins and bats got the same mutations in the same location independently multiple times, Agree?

No. Nothing is being said about the genetic pathway that made them end up with a similar protein allowing for hearing the ultra-sonic frequencies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Flat earth theory is beinign discussed in the scientific literature ? is that what you are saying? Care to provide an example?

Natrual Genetic Engeneerignis is just an alternative model (hypothesis) just like the neodarwinian model that states that all the diversity of life is the product of a process of random mutation + natural selection is also just a hypothesis that may or may not be true

The terms of Darwinism and Neo Darwinism actually have no constructive meaning in contemporary science.

Actually no, the contemporary view in the science of evolution is not that natural selection is a product of random mutation. Natural selection is based on and a product of the environmental influence on the genetic diversity in a population. Randomness only refers to the individual events of mutation that result in the genetic diversity in a population. The randomness of individual mutations in and of itself has no ability to cause anything. This is basically true of all randomness in nature which only applies to the unpredictability of individual events within the constraints of the environment and Natural Law, and cannot cause anything.

Please note from previous post: Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

 

[gnostic]

Meaning and purpose? No! Abrahamic religion is an assertion of absolute, objective, metaphysical truth. It's not a social club or self-help modality. It's goal is to get you to Heaven, not improve your life.

That’s partly true (referring to the heaven’s part), and only with Christianity and Islam and other offshoot.

In Judaism, there is nothing about getting to Heaven. There are no resurrection and no afterlife in Heaven or in Hell. When you die, every shades go to the Jewish version of the netherworld. And the netherworld is neither heaven, nor hell. There are no eternal rewards or eternal punishment.

In Judaism, there are only this life for them, on earth. Whenever god rewarded his favorites, or punished those who turned away from him, all rewards and punishment occurred when they were alive.

The covenant for example, were always about the lands, which Abraham’ descendants will get, which have nothing to do about reserving their places in Heaven. Heaven was only meant for god.

 

[ecco]

That’s partly true (referring to the heaven’s part), and only with Christianity and Islam and other offshoot.

In Judaism, there is nothing about getting to Heaven. There are no resurrection and no afterlife in Heaven or in Hell. When you die, every shades go to the Jewish version of the netherworld. And the netherworld is neither heaven, nor hell. There are no eternal rewards or eternal punishment.

In Judaism, there are only this life for them, on earth. Whenever god rewarded his favorites, or punished those who turned away from him, all rewards and punishment occurred when they were alive.

The covenant for example, were always about the lands, which Abraham’ descendants will get, which have nothing to do about reserving their places in Heaven. Heaven was only meant for god.

So...
God sends good Christians to Heaven.
God sends bad atheists to Hell.
God does nothing with dead Jews.

Hmm.