question for those who reject biological evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like grate opportunity to support your claim.

I supported it. If you do not understand something asking questions is fine. But do not make false accusations about others and expect them to be polite or even provide you answers. Sooner or later you have to apologize for your false claims.

Try again.

Well that is what I understood from the articles, that is what the author of the National Geographic article understood and this is what the author of the AIG article understood.

I will not change my mind just because you say so.......................if you whant to convince me you have to support your claims

1 that loci in this context means "same general área"

2 that if my interpretation is correct could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice............... (+ expalin what traits are you talking about)

Again, that has already been supported by the language used. Your refusal to understand is your problem.

 

[leroy]

But it doesn't mean that to you, to you it means whatever I've heard is non-random to use to fill in my imaginary solution.
It is just your non-reasoning thought process, and we know it.

Ok you got me, so apart from your stage theories on me having secret definitions and a secret pro ID agenda………… do we disagree on anything?

1 you accept that nonrandom mutations (and nonrandom variation) occur

2 you accept that they play a role in evoltution

3 which means that organisms didn’t evolved through random mutations + NS alone……………as oppose to what you afimred in previous posts

4 So worst case scenario the specific example on echolocation fails………… but there are many other examples of non random mutatons that you grant

Please let me know if you disagree with any of the points



There is no secret agenda to introduce a Designer……… but even it there where an genda, that shouldn’t be an issue, as the scientific minded person that you claim to be, you have accept or reject arguments based on the merits or failures of the argument, not based on weather if it challenges your own personal world view or not.

 

[leroy]

No, not the same. You keep saying the same when your quote itself says "more similar". More similar means "not the same"

Ignoring the rest since it looks just like lame apologetics.

When compare the whole gene and all the characters………………sure the gene is not the same (identical) in bats and dolphins.

When you look at the specific amino acid sequences we do have identical sports in bats and dolphins, but not in other mammals.

This is what the article says

 

[Pogo]

Ok from the article

1 the observation is that in some portions of the gene perstine (and other genes) bats and dolphins look more similar to each other……than when compered with other mammals, including mammals that are closer relatives. .. this means that in some regions of that gene we have the same amino acid sequence in bats and dolphins but not in other mammals.

Note that I am not saying that the whole gene is identical in bats and dolphins………the gene is similar but not identical in all mammals …… it is just that the similarities between bats and dolphins is grated than between closer relatives (say dolphins and blue whales)………… (so this is the observation made by the authors of the articles)

2 Given that they have the same variations (same amiono acids sequence) in the same genes and in the same places and given that bats and dolphins are not close relatives……. The obvious interpretation is that they suffered from the same mutations independently. (feel free to provide a different interpretation)

3 Given that genomes are typically 3Billon base pairs long , it is unlikely for 2 individuals to suffer independently by the same random mutations in the same place…. This would be like you and I copying a text and having the exact same spelling mistake in the exact same sentence and word, hence I think that nonrandom mutations better account for this observation.



You already accept that non random mutations occure and you already think that they played in important role in the evolution of organisms so why do you think that this specific observation is better explain by random mutations rather than non random mutatons?

..

My original point was that some observations are better explained by non random mutations, I simply presented this particular case as an example………… but even if I fail………. That will simply show that this specific example fails…….. it is still a fact that non random mutations occure and that they play an important role………. We agree on this general……..any disagreement would be on the specific examples.

Obvious to you, but obviously wrong to educated people, all evidence is that these changes would be as a result of a random walk of mutations that ended up converging. A parallel pattern of mutations would be beyond credibility.
You could posit a parallel walk, but then you would have to actually provide evidence for a mechanism to generate it and considering the detours already indicated by other animals from the same starting point, none of the non-random mechanisms have any where near the capability of generating the observed output.

Your fantasies are not evidence, they are just ignorant assertions.

 

[Pogo]

When compare the whole gene and all the characters………………sure the gene is not the same (identical) in bats and dolphins.

When you look at the specific amino acid sequences we do have identical sports in bats and dolphins, but not in other mammals.

This is what the article says

Yup, and the question here is how they got that way, and the answer is none of the methods you imagine because none of them can do what is observed.
Fantasy is not scientific evidence.

 

[leroy]

I supported it. If you do not understand something asking questions is fine. But do not make false accusations about others and expect them to be polite or even provide you answers. Sooner or later you have to apologize for your false claims.

Try again.

Again, that has already been supported by the language used. Your refusal to understand is your problem.

Nope, we have once again a “you are wrong because I say so”

I have asked politely you multiple times to develop and justify your argument on ´´ scientists could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice.”

But you fail to do so………………all we have is you are wrong because I say so……….

 

[Pogo]

Ok you got me, so apart from your stage theories on me having secret definitions and a secret pro ID agenda………… do we disagree on anything?

1 you accept that nonrandom mutations (and nonrandom variation) occur

2 you accept that they play a role in evoltution

3 which means that organisms didn’t evolved through random mutations + NS alone……………as oppose to what you afimred in previous posts

4 So worst case scenario the specific example on echolocation fails………… but there are many other examples of non random mutatons that you grant

Please let me know if you disagree with any of the points



There is no secret agenda to introduce a Designer……… but even it there where an genda, that shouldn’t be an issue, as the scientific minded person that you claim to be, you have accept or reject arguments based on the merits or failures of the argument, not based on weather if it challenges your own personal world view or not.

I neither agree nor disagree with your non statement.
First of all, there are other random mechanisms so you as usual present a false dichotomy due to your ignorance and arrogance.

 

[leroy]

I neither agree nor disagree with your non statement.
First of all, there are other random mechanisms so you as usual present a false dichotomy due to your ignorance and arrogance.

Good move

1 you don t what to agree on non random mutations . Because that would imply that you where wrong in previous post where you explicitly denied them

2 you dont whant to disagree because that would require you to refute the papers and the Scientific consensus


So you descided to neither agree nor disagree. But rather keep your view vague , ambigous and untestable

 

[Pogo]

Good move

1 you don t what to agree on non random mutations . Because that would imply that you where wrong in previous post where you explicitly denied them

2 you dont whant to disagree because that would require you to refute the papers and the Scientific consensus


So you descided to neither agree nor disagree. But rather keep your view vague , ambigous and untestable

NO @leroy, I meant what I said and your lack of understanding is your problem.

 

[leroy]

I supported it. If you do not understand something asking questions is fine. But do not make false accusations about others and expect them to be polite or even provide you answers. Sooner or later you have to apologize for your false claims.

Try again.

Again, that has already been supported by the language used. Your refusal to understand is your problem.

Nope, we have once again a “you are wrong because I say so”

I have asked politely you multiple times to develop and justify your argument on ´´ scientists could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice.”

But you fail to do so………………all we have is you are wrong because I say so……….

 

[leroy]

NO @leroy, I meant what I said and your lack of understanding is your problem.

You don’t support your claims, you don’t answer questions, you don’t admit your mistakes…….. Even compared to YECs you are very special and unique case of a person

 

[Pogo]

You don’t support your claims, you don’t answer questions, you don’t admit your mistakes…….. Even compared to YECs you are very special and unique case of a person

Get it through your head, we are not the ones making mistakes it is your lack of understanding of evolution and the English language that is responsible for your mistaken ideas.

 

[leroy]

Get it through your head, we are not the ones making mistakes it is your lack of understanding of evolution and the English language that is responsible for your mistaken ideas.

But you can´t quote any mistake made by me (my actual words) you are making things up

 

[Pogo]

But you can´t quote any mistake made by me (my actual words) you are making things up

Every one of your premise 1 or 2 questions has been a false dichotomy due to your lack of understanding. look them up for yourself.

Some more evidence of your frequent mistakes and misunderstandings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, we have once again a “you are wrong because I say so”

I have asked politely you multiple times to develop and justify your argument on ´´ scientists could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice.”

But you fail to do so………………all we have is you are wrong because I say so……….

No, it is a "you are wrong because everyone has explained to you how you are wrong".

If you want a serious discussion you need to drop the false personal attacks.

 

[leroy]

Every one of your premise 1 or 2 questions has been a false dichotomy due to your lack of understanding. look them up for yourself.

Some more evidence of your frequent mistakes and misunderstandings.

But you are unable to quote my actual mistakes …….. this is obvious evidence that you are making things up

 

[leroy]

No, it is a "you are wrong because everyone has explained to you how you are wrong".

You just asserted that my interpretation of the article is wrong because scientists could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice.

You didn’t explain what you mean , you didn’t supported your assertion-.----- all we have is “because you says so”

The same is true with your claim on convergent evolution *always* meaning n not the same……..you just make random claims, but support nothing

If you want a serious discussion you need to drop the false personal attacks.

Sounds like a pathetic excuse for not supporting your claims

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you are unable to quote my actual mistakes …….. this is obvious evidence that you are making things up

We have done so many times. As I pointed out the language that was used told us that you were wrong in your conclusions. Same "loci" does not mean "same place." The language alone told you that. This is why context matters. But since you never looked up the term yourself I will do so for you:

Locus (genetics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In genetics, a locus (pl.: loci) is a specific, fixed position on a chromosome where a particular gene or genetic marker is located.[1]"

In other words the same gene on the same chromosome means same locus. Finding that is evidence of common descent. No one has been debating against that since we are talking mammals here. They have a relatively recent common ancestor probably less than 65 million years ago.

But what exactly is a locus of a gene? They give an example:

"A range of loci is specified in a similar way. For example, the locus of gene OCA1 may be written "11q1.4-q2.1", meaning it is on the long arm of chromosome 11, somewhere in the range from sub-band 4 of region 1 to sub-band 1 of region 2."

The locus of a gene is where it is found on the chromosome. But the articles are about mutations within the genes. Genes are easily tens of thousands of nucleons in length.

Another article that says that the locus is just the location of the gene. It is not saying a specific spot on gene:

Locus

A locus is the specific physical location of a gene or other DNA sequence on a chromosome, like a genetic street address.

www.genome.gov

And yet another one:

NCI Dictionary of Genetics Terms

A dictionary of more than 150 genetics-related terms written for healthcare professionals. This resource was developed to support the comprehensive, evidence-based, peer-reviewed PDQ cancer genetics information summaries.

www.cancer.gov

You kept misinterpreting "locus" as being a specific spot on a gene after it was explained to you why it did not mean that. You had already lost due to the context that was used. You should have looked up the term yourself. But then you would have seen that you were wrong so I understand why you avoid reliable sites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just asserted that my interpretation of the article is wrong because scientists could not have identified bats as developing the traits twice.

You didn’t explain what you mean , you didn’t supported your assertion-.----- all we have is “because you says so”

The same is true with your claim on convergent evolution *always* meaning n not the same……..you just make random claims, but support nothing



Sounds like a pathetic excuse for not supporting your claims

More projection and false claims. Once again, I supported my claims with the context of the articles that you provided. You never supported your claims. And as you now should know you were wrong.

As usual the false claims about others came from you.

 

[blü 2]

sorry but that is rubbish. The reason why it was written by the Apostle Peter is because the writer himself says so.
If a Christian is going to start playing those sorts of games, then screw christianity...the whole bible is fabricated.

The idea that the NT is literally true is nonsense. It's full of contradictions, which the Christian church encourages the believer to ignore or rationalize away. >Here< is one set of examples, but if you want more, just ask.

Your argument is nonesense. The claim of authorship by the writer alone as an eyewitness to Christs baptism is proof of that! (i will not answer to any more of your stupidity on this point)

We have no idea who wrote Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John. We have excellent reasons to doubt that Paul wrote all the letters attributed to him. Might I gently suggest that stupidity is believing things, especially improbable things, without first checking whether they're accurate statements about reality or not.

In particular, I'd suggest, since it's worked well for me, never be afraid to understand the opposing argument, nor to wonder honestly whether it's correct or not (as distinct from rejecting it to protect something believed only on faith).