Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[nPeace]

Ah you mean a citation like @whirlingmerc didn't provid, gotya

Do you have 4 years or so free so study at university because (and you know but consider yourself to be sarcastic) that the RF servers are not big enough to hold the DNA data

However

Cows are more closely related to whales than to pigs, says a genetic study that suggests a new place for whales in the evolutionary family tree.

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

But even-toed mammals were thought to be more closely related to each other than any of them were to whales. The new study challenges that idea. It says hippos and cud-chewing mammals like cows, sheep and deer are more closely related to whales, dolphins and porpoises than they are to other even-toed mammals like pigs and camels.

The work is presented in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature by scientists from Japan. They reached their conclusions by studying details of genetic material.

Edit
You could also learn from a more in depth study but i doubt you will even try https://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~aging/srep17.pdf

So the "evolutionary family tree" is the DNA evidence?
The evolutionary family tree is built on what? The evolutionary family tree is accurate right?
You don't have to provide the data for these. I already know the answers.

Phylogenetic tree
"...based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics....

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy;[14] the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination,[15] horizontal gene transfer,[16] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences........"

How is this not inferring?

 

[nPeace]

The device you used to post is an example of the scientific method. From early hypothesis about quantum mechanics, revised and improved to the millions of semiconductors making the multiprocessor machine that allows you to mock science online

Trust me. I am not mocking science.
You want it to be science, and even if they call it science, how does that change what it really is?
They call gay marriage a sacred bond. It's a free country.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Ah you mean a citation like @whirlingmerc didn't provid, gotya

Do you have 4 years or so free so study at university because (and you know but consider yourself to be sarcastic) that the RF servers are not big enough to hold the DNA data

However

Cows are more closely related to whales than to pigs, says a genetic study that suggests a new place for whales in the evolutionary family tree.

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

But even-toed mammals were thought to be more closely related to each other than any of them were to whales. The new study challenges that idea. It says hippos and cud-chewing mammals like cows, sheep and deer are more closely related to whales, dolphins and porpoises than they are to other even-toed mammals like pigs and camels.

The work is presented in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature by scientists from Japan. They reached their conclusions by studying details of genetic material.

Edit
You could also learn from a more in depth study but i doubt you will even try https://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~aging/srep17.pdf

Yes there is a fanciful theory that cows went into the ocean and became whales
but to het the morphological changes of mouth to blow hole on back or sonar in head leaves it must that fanciful

There is another fanciful story about bods turning into porpoise similar problems

and yes I have 4 years for bachelors and 16 years of study for my other engineering degrees of which I have 4

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the "evolutionary family tree" is the DNA evidence?
The evolutionary family tree is built on what? The evolutionary family tree is accurate right?
You don't have to provide the data for these. I already know the answers.

Phylogenetic tree
"...based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics....

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy;[14] the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination,[15] horizontal gene transfer,[16] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences........"

How is this not inferring?

No, the DNA is extremely strong evidence for the evolutionary family tree. How could you get that so bass ackwards?

The evolutionary tree, which is a human construct that is a best estimate of how life is related, is continually getting more and more accurate. DNA allows us to correct errors in the tree of life, most of them relatively minor.

And most of science is "inferring". It is inference based upon evidence and testing. You appear to have no understanding of the scientific method at all. In all of the sciences knowledge builds upon knowledge. We can see that very clearly in physics where we could not even approach the experiments that we are doing today. Today's experiments are based upon what we have learned over the last 100 years, and the technology developed from that learning.

 

[nPeace]

Yes there is a fanciful theory that cows went into the ocean and became whales
but to het the morphological changes of mouth to blow hole on back or sonar in head leaves it must that fanciful

There is another fanciful story about bods turning into porpoise similar problems

and yes I have 4 years for bachelors and 16 years of study for my other engineering degrees of which I have 4

...and you haven't even scratched the surface on mentioning the fanciful stories. Their artists are good though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there is a fanciful theory that cows went into the ocean and became whales
but to het the morphological changes of mouth to blow hole on back or sonar in head leaves it must that fanciful

There is another fanciful story about bods turning into porpoise similar problems

and yes I have 4 years for bachelors and 16 years of study for my other engineering degrees of which I have 4

Nothing fanciful about it. It is strongly supported by evidence. You must be conflating your fanciful beliefs with evolution.

And it is too bad that you did not take any serious science classes when you went to college. Every serious science class that I have taken has had a lab course that went with it. The ideas were taught in the class and then they were confirmed in the lab. Practice makes perfect when it comes to the scientific method. The one class that I took that was a waste of time had no lab. Now I know better. Nor was it a major's level class. The prof was not the best in the department.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, the DNA is extremely strong evidence for the evolutionary family tree. How could you get that so bass ackwards?

The evolutionary tree, which is a human construct that is a best estimate of how life is related, is continually getting more and more accurate. DNA allows us to correct errors in the tree of life, most of them relatively minor.

And most of science is "inferring". It is inference based upon evidence and testing. You appear to have no understanding of the scientific method at all. In all of the sciences knowledge builds upon knowledge. We can see that very clearly in physics where we could not even approach the experiments that we are doing today. Today's experiments are based upon what we have learned over the last 100 years, and the technology developed from that learning.

Even Richard Dawson couldn't think of an example of where information increased in a point mutation... as many information scientists have noted is a big hole in the speculation of evolution... perhaps theory is not as good a work for it as speculation.

Information and software gotta come from somewhere and software doesn't write itself

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nothing fanciful about it. It is strongly supported by evidence. You must be conflating your fanciful beliefs with evolution.

And it is too bad that you did not take any serious science classes when you went to college. Every serious science class that I have taken has had a lab course that went with it. The ideas were taught in the class and then they were confirmed in the lab. Practice makes perfect when it comes to the scientific method. The one class that I took that was a waste of time had no lab. Now I know better. Nor was it a major's level class. The prof was not the best in the department.

My my my.... I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees...and many decades of practical experience

I see you really enjoy ad hominem
but when you're position is weak as yours is, what can you do but fall back on that?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Thanks. Can you give me one example in science of this, outside of the theory of evolution - one example that fits what you understand me to be saying.

ALL science is based on this method. You start with an educated guess or hypothesis and figure out a way to test the hypothesis that can be replicated by others. Based upon the results of the test, additional hypothesis are then made. It holds true for Ortelius's theory of plate tectonics as well as Einstein's theory of relativity... and of course, Darwin's theory of evolution.

 

[ChristineM]

So the "evolutionary family tree" is the DNA evidence?
The evolutionary family tree is built on what? The evolutionary family tree is accurate right?
You don't have to provide the data for these. I already know the answers.

Phylogenetic tree
"...based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics....

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy;[14] the analysis can be confounded by genetic recombination,[15] horizontal gene transfer,[16] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences........"

How is this not inferring?

You obviously did not even bother with the link i provided

 

[ChristineM]

Trust me. I am not mocking science.
You want it to be science, and even if they call it science, how does that change what it really is?
They call gay marriage a sacred bond. It's a free country.

Why should i trust you, when your post claiming you dont mock science is in itself a mockery

 

[Subduction Zone]

...and you haven't even scratched the surface on mentioning the fanciful stories. Their artists are good though.

Why does the Ninth Commandment mean nothing to creationists?

 

[whirlingmerc]

...and you haven't even scratched the surface on mentioning the fanciful stories. Their artists are good though.

Walrus and manatee are similar but that is a bit more believable

In the case of walrus manatee while and cow, evolutionists do appeal to convergent evolution where the same thing evolves multiple ways in parallel but... allas... that also blows a hole in similarity means common ancensty

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even Richard Dawson couldn't think of an example of where information increased in a point mutation... as many information scientists have noted is a big hole in the speculation of evolution... perhaps theory is not as good a work for it as speculation.

Information and software gotta come from somewhere and software doesn't write itself

Why on Earth would you think that he would know that?

EDIT: Rats, no images. Think Family Feud.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes there is a fanciful theory that cows went into the ocean and became whales
but to het the morphological changes of mouth to blow hole on back or sonar in head leaves it must that fanciful

There is another fanciful story about bods turning into porpoise similar problems

and yes I have 4 years for bachelors and 16 years of study for my other engineering degrees of which I have 4

Not a fanciful anything even if you wish it.

But no biology education, fair enough

 

[whirlingmerc]

Why does the Ninth Commandment mean nothing to creationists?

There could be a painting of 'the stampede theory' where cows follow each other to the sea like lemmings... only... unlike lemmings... somehow survive and thrive and get bigger and bigger and bigger

 

[Subduction Zone]

Walrus and manatee are similar but that is a bit more believable

In the case of walrus manatee while and cow, evolutionists do appeal to convergent evolution where the same thing evolves multiple ways in parallel but... allas... that also blows a hole in similarity means common ancensty

No one has said that similarity means common ancestry. Where do you get this from? Similarity can be evidence of common ancestry. It is evidence of common ancestry, but one needs to be careful. Convergent evolution occurs when environment governs the form that a species takes. It is better to look deeper. Body parts are more telling and DNA is a slam dunk.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not a fanciful anything even if you wish it.

But no biology education, fair enough

Bill Nye only has a BS in Mechanical Engineering .
Carl Sagan has more but astronomy
Darwin's another astornomer
Darwin had a degree in Bible and that was it

so yes... fair enough

 

[nPeace]

When someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
Not a few bones but many along with dna (which cannot lie), comparative anatomy and anthropology. 50 years ago the conclusion was interred, but you are behind the times because it suites your agenda, now, 50 years later things have moved on and the evidence is sound

.and someone "knowledgeable" tells you this
And most of science is "inferring". It is inference based upon evidence and testing.
You wonder, so what are these "knowledgeable" people making so much noise about?

With so much evidence around us, why don't you infer a creator.
Ah. The scientific method cannot include the supernatural - only ETs.
Too bad.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

There could be a painting of 'the stampede theory' where cows follow each other to the sea like lemmings... only... unlike lemmings... somehow survive and thrive and get bigger and bigger and bigger

Yes, something that a creationist would make up.

Perhaps if you learned what science is and how it is done you would not make such obvious errors.