Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[usfan]

We'll see if he can answer some simple questions asked with NO commentary whatsoever. I'm betting more smilies and insults and no answers...

I have a more appropriate reply, for a poo flinging, deceptive, heckler, but it would be against forum rules, and they don't have the right emoticon that conveys my sincere feelings towards your barrage of bullying, distortions, and religious hysteria.

Plus, even though you'd deserve it, it's really not fitting in a rational debate. In person, or in another setting, you would have already heard a more scathing and fitting epithet for your hateful heckling.. but I'm sure that is what you guys love about the anonymity and security of internet forums.. You can say anything, with no consequence. Lying propagandists love this format..

 

[tas8831]

The fascinating science of genetics, a relative newcomer in the quest to understand 'how?' and 'why?', is still greatly misunderstood.

Wow - do tell!

If there is interest, i can attempt to clarify and explain some of the complex nuances of our genetic makeup.

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes' - like that?

Would you like a different perspective and analysis of the facts of science, or do you prefer the memorized dogma we were all force fed at school?

Ah, the old 'dogma' canard. Let's what your 4 decades of study can show us.

There are many false perceptions:
1. Lego block homogeneity. 'All genes are the same! We can just rearrange them or snap one in to another to change organisms!'

Wow, I don;t remember being taught or reading tthat anywhere at any time. The 3 different textbooks that I have used over the years in my Genetics classes don;t indicate that anywhere.

Do you have a reference so we can verify this is in fact "dogma we were all force fed at school"?

Is it your studied opinion that brand new genes are required for phenotype variation?

2. 'Percentage of similarity proves common descent!'

Also never seen this presented as 'dogma.' In fact, texts that I am familiar with explain that this is not so, and that while the percent similarity is obviously indicative of the ancestor-'descendency' relationships, to borrow your word (that is, for example, how your Canid mtGenome paper did one of its analyses - the NJ method groups taxa by a pairwise similarity algorithm. But you knew that, given your 4 decades of study.
It is, in fact, the unique shared mutations that are far more informative for such things. And these are what processes like Bayesian and Likelihood and maximum parsimony methods employ.

3. Obfuscating techno babble with vague, undefined terms, and ambiguous concepts proves common descent!

Right. Like how creationists use one definition of haplotype, and every actually educated and experienced geneticistis/biologist uses another.

But it is so odd- after 40 years of study, I would think that the 'technobable' is no longer a mystery to you. I stopped being flabbergasted by field-specific terminology when I took a medical terminology class as a freshman in college. Didn't address all 'technobabble' but made it easier for me to parse new words. You should take such a class.

Here is a creationist 'technical' paper - so much technobabble - who are they trying to fool?

Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity
by Glen Fankhauser, M.S., and Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.

Abstract
Snakes have rarely been examined as examples of intrabaraminic variation due to the relative obscurity of knowledge regarding the subject of these secretive animals as well as the relative newness of the breeding of snakes. North American species of snakes of the genera Lampropeltis, Pituophis, and Elaphe, while classified in separate genera may actually be more closely related than evolutionary biology predicts.

This study examined intergeneric and interspecific hybridization of several species of colubrid snakes through the use of both natural breeding methods and scent disguise to fool the different species to interbreed. Eleven different species of three different genera were used in this experiment. Results of the crosses were as expected to resemble midpoints of color and pattern between the parental species. Banding patterns appeared to be dominant over blotches and stripes. The most interesting finding was that the amelanistic varieties of the California kingsnake, L.g.californiae, and the corn snake, E.g.guttata are apparently allelic forms of amelanism regardless of the fact that these snakes are members of different genera. When the two genera were crossed this albinism appeared in the F1 generation. All types of the hybrids produced were viable and fertile. As such, they are most likely examples of intrabaraminic diversity of created “kinds” rather than evolutionary speciation. This paper adds viability, homologous genes, and pigment variations to the list of character space criteria for recognizing baramins.​

Oh my gosh, the technobabble for the purpose of obfuscation!!! IntrabaraWHOOO???

Close scrutiny and analysis of the FACTS of our genetics makes concluding common descent more problematic than ever. The facts do not align with perceptions.

Expand please. Show your work.

Here is a repost of #99, which was likely lost in the flurry of heckling and indignation, that this topic seems to attract.

"Here is a graphic that shows the structure of the chromosome.
I think perhaps the main problem is in understanding the complexity & inflexibility of the genetic structure.

"Inflexibility"? What do you mean by that? Any 2 humans differ by about 160 million bases.
is that not flexibility?

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE.

Again, I have never heard this, read this, or been taught this.
You will need to explain what you mean and provide references to have this assertion taken seriously. Here, for example, we see a HUGE amount of synteny bewteen human and chimp genomes (synteny being, in effect, the degree to which organisms share genome architecture).

The genes WITHIN the chromosomes are completely different, & do not correlate.

This is false. It is at odds with what is actually seen in human/chimp comparisons. See above.

Similarity does not imply descendancy.

It did when it was seen in mtGenomes in your Canidae post - why the double standards? Here is a primer on molecular phylogenetics - odd that in your 4 decades of study you never came across what such studies actually entail.
As I've already mentioned, shared, unique mutations are more informative than just plain old % similarity.

That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things."

If there is interest, we could examine the complexities of dna, and the building blocks of life.

Sure - I cannot wait to see your treatment of the "complexities" of DNA. I am sure the content of this post is a good indication of the level of up to date sophistication we can anticipate.

I might suggest that among the reasons your initial posting of this did not garner much response is the amount of misinformation it it made it seem to much of a burden.

 

[tas8831]

The fascinating science of genetics, a relative newcomer in the quest to understand 'how?' and 'why?', is still greatly misunderstood.

Wow - do tell!

If there is interest, i can attempt to clarify and explain some of the complex nuances of our genetic makeup.

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes' - like that?

Would you like a different perspective and analysis of the facts of science, or do you prefer the memorized dogma we were all force fed at school?

Ah, the old 'dogma' canard. Let's what your 4 decades of study can show us.

There are many false perceptions:
1. Lego block homogeneity. 'All genes are the same! We can just rearrange them or snap one in to another to change organisms!'

Wow, I don;t remember being taught or reading tthat anywhere at any time. The 3 different textbooks that I have used over the years in my Genetics classes don;t indicate that anywhere.

Do you have a reference so we can verify this is in fact "dogma we were all force fed at school"?

Is it your studied opinion that brand new genes are required for phenotype variation?

2. 'Percentage of similarity proves common descent!'

Also never seen this presented as 'dogma.' In fact, texts that I am familiar with explain that this is not so, and that while the percent similarity is obviously indicative of the ancestor-'descendency' relationships, to borrow your word (that is, for example, how your Canid mtGenome paper did one of its analyses - the NJ method groups taxa by a pairwise similarity algorithm. But you knew that, given your 4 decades of study.
It is, in fact, the unique shared mutations that are far more informative for such things. And these are what processes like Bayesian and Likelihood and maximum parsimony methods employ.

3. Obfuscating techno babble with vague, undefined terms, and ambiguous concepts proves common descent!

Right. Like how creationists use one definition of haplotype, and every actually educated and experienced geneticistis/biologist uses another.

But it is so odd- after 40 years of study, I would think that the 'technobable' is no longer a mystery to you. I stopped being flabbergasted by field-specific terminology when I took a medical terminology class as a freshman in college. Didn't address all 'technobabble' but made it easier for me to parse new words. You should take such a class.

Here is a creationist 'technical' paper - so much technobabble - who are they trying to fool?

Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity
by Glen Fankhauser, M.S., and Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.

Abstract
Snakes have rarely been examined as examples of intrabaraminic variation due to the relative obscurity of knowledge regarding the subject of these secretive animals as well as the relative newness of the breeding of snakes. North American species of snakes of the genera Lampropeltis, Pituophis, and Elaphe, while classified in separate genera may actually be more closely related than evolutionary biology predicts.

This study examined intergeneric and interspecific hybridization of several species of colubrid snakes through the use of both natural breeding methods and scent disguise to fool the different species to interbreed. Eleven different species of three different genera were used in this experiment. Results of the crosses were as expected to resemble midpoints of color and pattern between the parental species. Banding patterns appeared to be dominant over blotches and stripes. The most interesting finding was that the amelanistic varieties of the California kingsnake, L.g.californiae, and the corn snake, E.g.guttata are apparently allelic forms of amelanism regardless of the fact that these snakes are members of different genera. When the two genera were crossed this albinism appeared in the F1 generation. All types of the hybrids produced were viable and fertile. As such, they are most likely examples of intrabaraminic diversity of created “kinds” rather than evolutionary speciation. This paper adds viability, homologous genes, and pigment variations to the list of character space criteria for recognizing baramins.​

Oh my gosh, the technobabble for the purpose of obfuscation!!! IntrabaraWHOOO???

Close scrutiny and analysis of the FACTS of our genetics makes concluding common descent more problematic than ever. The facts do not align with perceptions.

Expand please. Show your work.

Here is a repost of #99, which was likely lost in the flurry of heckling and indignation, that this topic seems to attract.

"Here is a graphic that shows the structure of the chromosome.
I think perhaps the main problem is in understanding the complexity & inflexibility of the genetic structure.

"Inflexibility"? What do you mean by that? Any 2 humans differ by about 160 million bases.
is that not flexibility?

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE.

Again, I have never heard this, read this, or been taught this.
You will need to explain what you mean and provide references to have this assertion taken seriously. Here, for example, we see a HUGE amount of synteny bewteen human and chimp genomes (synteny being, in effect, the degree to which organisms share genome architecture).

The genes WITHIN the chromosomes are completely different, & do not correlate.

This is false. It is at odds with what is actually seen in human/chimp comparisons. See above.

Similarity does not imply descendancy.

It did when it was seen in mtGenomes in your Canidae post - why the double standards? Here is a primer on molecular phylogenetics - odd that in your 4 decades of study you never came across what such studies actually entail.
As I've already mentioned, shared, unique mutations are more informative than just plain old % similarity.

That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things."

If there is interest, we could examine the complexities of dna, and the building blocks of life.

Sure - I cannot wait to see your treatment of the "complexities" of DNA. I am sure the content of this post is a good indication of the level of up to date sophistication we can anticipate.

I might suggest that among the reasons your initial posting of this did not garner much response is the amount of misinformation it it made it seem to much of a burden.

 

[usfan]

A reminder, of the terms of the OP:

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

 

[tas8831]

I have a more appropriate reply, for a poo flinging, deceptive, heckler, but it would be against forum rules, and they don't have the right emoticon that conveys my sincere feelings towards your barrage of bullying, distortions, and religious hysteria.

Bullying? Oh you poor poor little thing!

Is this your more appropriate reply:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes

Plus, even though you'd deserve it, it's really not fitting in a rational debate. In person, or in another setting, you would have already heard a more scathing and fitting epithet for your hateful heckling..

Oh heavens no! You'd call me names some more instead of addressing the rebuttals to your child-like understanding of science?????

But I kid -
Not too worried about your pseudo-macho fantasies, but it is a common means by which people like you try to hide the fact that they have realized that they cannot actually explain their assertions or provide evidence for them.

but I'm sure that is what you guys love about the anonymity and security of internet forums.. You can say anything, with no consequence. Lying propagandists love this format..

Is that why you love them? Your projection, by the way, is pretty obvious.

So you cannot answer these questions:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.

thanks!


Got it .

 

[Subduction Zone]

A reminder, of the terms of the OP:

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

Those same rules apply to you. And I must remind you that you continually demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. I can find more sources than the one that I use, but it is one of the best articles of scientific evidence out there.

Until you understand the concept of scientific evidence all you can do is deny. Once you understand it you will have to admit that there is scientific evidence for common descent. So once again:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

We know that you like to make up your own definitions for the terms that you use, but one cannot communicate if one does that. You may think that corrections and comments about your bad behavior are "ad homs" but if you look up the definition of an ad hominem fallacy you will find that is not the case. Just as you may have your own strange definition of "scientific evidence" but we cannot communicate if you demand a definition that no one else understands.

The definition that I have provided, and can find at other sources exist partially because scientists at times can make the same error that you make of denying evidence. That definition takes personal opinion out of the mix. As I have pointed out before one only needs to ask to questions. Is the concept falsifiable. Do the observations support it. All of the observations so far do support common descent and that is a falsifiable concept.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

..progressive indoctrinees..

I told you early on.. hiding some rational points in a personal, snark filled post will not be acknowledged.. I'll point out the snark, sometimes, but don't expect a civil, rational reply to some pretended 'evidentiary' reply that is just a vehicle for heckling.

So, let me get this straight, you can and will ignore any and all scientific argument and points while pointing out "snark" and spending entire posts accusing me of being "indoctrinated". Meanwhile, I can't write a response to you that, in part, calls out blatant dishonesty without you accusing me of personally attacking you and using that as justification for personal accusations against me?

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

This one, for example. You make a point, then muddy it up with bickering and snippy remarks. You can play that game by yourself.

You think it's "bickering and snippy" to ask honest questions and give an honest opinion in a manner that isn't personally attacking you whatsoever?

Calm down, snowflake.

Ad hom inclusions will invalidate any other points made.

Such a good thing I've never committed an ad hom, then.

So might as well just flood the thread with heckling and personal sniping, since nothing else you say matters..

I really feel I'm "debating' with catty middle school girls.. snark and ridicule is your best 'argument'.

/shakes head/

... He says, quoting only the parts of posts that he unjustly interprets as "snark and ridicule", while ignoring the entire rest of the post which points out the numerous scientific arguments I've made that you've not responded to.

Seriously, do you believe this is honest debating? Why are you not capable of responding to the actual argument and evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bullying? Oh you poor poor little thing!

Is this your more appropriate reply:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes
Oh heavens no! You'd call me names some more instead of addressing the rebuttals to your child-like understanding of science?????

But I kid -
Not too worried about your pseudo-macho fantasies, but it is a common means by which people like you try to hide the fact that they have realized that they cannot actually explain their assertions or provide evidence for them.
Is that why you love them? Your projection, by the way, is pretty obvious.

So you cannot answer these questions:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.

thanks!


Got it .

You may be a "troll" because you make reasonable requests that he cannot respond to. I may be thought to be one too since I have to keep explaining the concept of evidence to him. Perhaps a united front is necessary. First he must answer your questions and learn the concept of scientific evidence before the thread can proceed. If everyone kept steering him back to these goals we might make some progress. Otherwise people will merely present clear cut evidence for common descent and he will deny it.

 

[tas8831]

A reminder, of the terms of the OP:

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting..

a poo flinging, deceptive, heckler,

I suppose, in Progresso World, that is a sign of superior intellect.. ​

Stuff like that is cool, though?

The most telling thing about all this?

If you find our accurate characterizations of you unflattering and unfair, rather than call us names and whine, the EASIEST and MOST EFFECTIVE response would be to just prove us wrong.

I quote you thusly:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes​

I laugh and use this as one of several of your claims to show that you, IMO, don't know what you are talking about.

You reply by whining like a child with namecalling as a pretense for ignoring the rebuttals.
Not so convincing - if you are actually correct, you could have simply EXPLAINED your claim and shown that it is actually correct, and I would have had to step back or risk being called out.

You write - and are so impressed with yourself that you re-post that these:

"Lego block homogeneity. 'All genes are the same! We can just rearrange them or snap one in to another to change organisms!':"
"You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE."​

are accurate and are "memorized dogma we were all force fed at school?"


I say BUNK. Now, you can call names and make excuses for not replying (which you've done for pretty much every instance in which someone has rebutted one of your supposed 'scientific' claims), or you can PROVE that you are actually correct by providing documentation/explanations.

I wholly anticipate name calling and dodging, but prove me wrong.

Let's see some of that Christian humility and honesty we are force fed as mantras in school!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A reminder, of the terms of the OP:

Here are a few rules i request.

1. Be civil. This is an examination of scientific theories & opinions.. no need to be insulting.
2. Be logical. Try to use sound reason & avoid logical fallacies.
3. Be factual. Verify your facts, & source them. 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence'.
4. Provide arguments. Make your case, support it with evidence, & present a conclusion. Provide a premise in your posts, or a rebuttal to someone else's premise.
5. Be concise. Premise a specific point. Post ONE bit of evidence at a time, and we can evaluate it's validity. Obviously there is much to be said in this discussion, & soundbites or one liners will be inadequate. But walls of pasted text do not aid communication. Keep your points simple & specific, & use links or quotes to support them.
6. Don't feed the trolls. Ignore hecklers, even if they seem to support your 'side'. They do not aid in communication or understanding. Begging the mods to close the thread is censorship.
7. Religious texts, and statements of belief are irrelevant. This is about evidence and reason, not belief.

If there is interest in a truly scientific examination of the evidence, i will participate. But if the thread devolves to heckling and religious hysteria, i will not.

My time is limited, so i will not always have a real time response, but i endeavor to reply to any evidence based and rational points made.

I'm more than happy to abide by these rules, provided there are a couple of caveats from you:

8. All evocations of the "ad hominem" fallacy MUST be qualified with an explanation of exactly how the statement in question fits the definition of an ad hominem fallacy, otherwise the fallacy should not be evoked at all. This rule will stand for all evocations of all other fallacies.
9. All posters reserve the right to call out dishonesty when they genuinely believe it to be present, and accusations of dishonesty should only be met with explanations, clarifications, rebuttals or retractions. Any attempt to portray an honest allegation of dishonesty as a personal attack should be dismissed.
10. Any infraction against any of the above 9 rules will be noted by me, and I will attempt to keep a tally. I swear to be as honest and bi-partisan as I can be. In the interests of fairness, you may also keep your own tally.

 

[usfan]

Perhaps a united front is necessary. First he must answer your questions and learn the concept of scientific evidence before the thread can proceed.

You can try to manipulate, bully, and berate me, all you want. You are stuck in Progresso World, where 'debating', is bickering about the intelligence, education, word usage, penis size, and other irrelevant details that have NO BEARING on the facts or reasoning in a debate.

I call you guys on it, yet that is all you have. I won't be drawn into your world of irrationality, Indoctrination, and folly. I'm sticking with science and reason.

I think you are just frustrated because your beliefs lack any empirical validity.. so you lash out at me, personally, to compensate.

If there was so much 'settled science!', behind this hare brained theory, you'd produce it. Nobody is that shallow or stupid, to ignore obvious evidence, if it were there. But since it is not there, you have to reach for far fetched, imaginative speculations..

'E.coli!'
'Phylogenetic Tree!'
'Vestigiality!'

..and other such pathetic excuses for 'evidence!' Have so many been deluded by a scientific scam since the flat earth times?

 

[usfan]

I say BUNK.

..your best argument, yet.. . ..your only argument, it seems..

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can try to manipulate, bully, and berate me, all you want. You are stuck in Progresso World, where 'debating', is bickering about the intelligence, education, word usage, penis size, and other irrelevant details that have NO BEARING on the facts or reasoning in a debate.

I call you guys on it, yet that is all you have. I won't be drawn into your world of irrationality, Indoctrination, and folly. I'm sticking with science and reason.

I think you are just frustrated because your beliefs lack any empirical validity.. so you lash out at me, personally, to compensate.

If there was so much 'settled science!', behind this hare brained theory, you'd produce it. Nobody is that shallow or stupid, to ignore obvious evidence, if it were there. But since it is not there, you have to reach for far fetched, imaginative speculations..

'E.coli!'
'Phylogenetic Tree!'
'Vestigiality!'

..and other such pathetic excuses for 'evidence!' Have so many been deluded by a scientific scam since the flat earth times?

Tell me, how is demanding that you learn what scientific evidence is "bullying"? By the way, you are making false claims about others that may be interpreted as "ad hom" at least by your definition. I am not bickering. I am not guilty of any of the supposed sins that you mentioned.

The fact is that you do not understand what scientific evidence is. That is why a supplied a source that defines it. And that definition is independent of the theory of evolution. It applies to all science. Please don't lie about others. All you need to do is to learn what scientific evidence is. You used the term, not me. That means you need to adhere to the definition of the concept.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Once you understand the concept I will gladly discuss those issues with you. Until then there is no point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..your best argument, yet.. . ..your only argument, it seems..

Quote mining is usually done because one cannot respond to the argument given. Perhaps we need a rule against quote mining in your list. But it can wait. First you need to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep ... total waste of time.

 

[tas8831]

I used scadding's ARGUMENTS.. not his authority.

Which YEC site did you plunder the Scadding quote from? Surely, you did not read the Scadding paper.

.
F*** scadding. I don't care what he believes. But his arguments on vestigiality are sound.

If you say so.

Found this about the Scadding thing:

Scadding wrote:

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.​

Poor creationists....

Your obsession with credentials is pathetic.

I was unaware that the length of time one claims to have studied something is a 'credential'.

If you didn't intend for your obviously fake claims about 4 decades of study, that you are a 'science geek', and that you 'know the material' to "impress" people, why bring it up? To set yourself up for this martyrdom schtick that so many conservative YECs do?

I make arguments and deal in facts.

No, you really don't.
You deal in assertions premised on crap you've read on YEC websitesand then whine and cry and name call when others others refute your claijms as far as I can tell.

You have ridicule, mocking, and fallacies.

Mockery and ridicule of bullies and charlatans, when accompanied by exposure fo their errors, is a great way to defeat them.
No fallacies - you don;t seem to know what they are, anyway.

So how does that evidence your beliefs? Deflect with arguments of authority all you want.. you merely out yourself as a propagandist.

Right.... These posts were all just 'arguments from authority":

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent


Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

etc....

The irrational, unevidenced, unscientific hysteria from these pseudo science religious fanatics always amazes me..

The unwitting projection is always fun to see!

 

[tas8831]

..your best argument, yet.. . ..your only argument, it seems..

So you cannot present evidence that your claims about genetics are correct? I predicted that.

And also you cannot answer these questions:

1. Please define "new genetic information" as you understand it.
2. Explain how such new genetic information could be created.
3. Explain why new genes are needed to alter phenotype.
4. explain how mutations are not changes in the genome.

thanks!


Got it .

 

[tas8831]

Pity that our resident YEC science expert chose only a single sentence in this post to respond to with insults and conservative incel name calling:

The fascinating science of genetics, a relative newcomer in the quest to understand 'how?' and 'why?', is still greatly misunderstood.

Wow - do tell!

If there is interest, i can attempt to clarify and explain some of the complex nuances of our genetic makeup.

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes' - like that?

Would you like a different perspective and analysis of the facts of science, or do you prefer the memorized dogma we were all force fed at school?

Ah, the old 'dogma' canard. Let's what your 4 decades of study can show us.

There are many false perceptions:
1. Lego block homogeneity. 'All genes are the same! We can just rearrange them or snap one in to another to change organisms!'

Wow, I don;t remember being taught or reading that anywhere at any time. The 3 different textbooks that I have used over the years in my Genetics classes don;t indicate that anywhere.

Do you have a reference so we can verify this is in fact "dogma we were all force fed at school"?

Is it your studied opinion that brand new genes are required for phenotype variation?

2. 'Percentage of similarity proves common descent!'

Also never seen this presented as 'dogma.' In fact, texts that I am familiar with explain that this is not so, and that while the percent similarity is obviously indicative of the ancestor-'descendency' relationships, to borrow your word (that is, for example, how your Canid mtGenome paper did one of its analyses - the NJ method groups taxa by a pairwise similarity algorithm. But you knew that, given your 4 decades of study.
It is, in fact, the unique shared mutations that are far more informative for such things. And these are what processes like Bayesian and Likelihood and maximum parsimony methods employ.

3. Obfuscating techno babble with vague, undefined terms, and ambiguous concepts proves common descent!

Right. Like how creationists use one definition of haplotype, and every actually educated and experienced geneticistis/biologist uses another.

But it is so odd- after 40 years of study, I would think that the 'technobable' is no longer a mystery to you. I stopped being flabbergasted by field-specific terminology when I took a medical terminology class as a freshman in college. Didn't address all 'technobabble' but made it easier for me to parse new words. You should take such a class.

Here is a creationist 'technical' paper - so much technobabble - who are they trying to fool?

Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity
by Glen Fankhauser, M.S., and Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.

Abstract
Snakes have rarely been examined as examples of intrabaraminic variation due to the relative obscurity of knowledge regarding the subject of these secretive animals as well as the relative newness of the breeding of snakes. North American species of snakes of the genera Lampropeltis, Pituophis, and Elaphe, while classified in separate genera may actually be more closely related than evolutionary biology predicts.

This study examined intergeneric and interspecific hybridization of several species of colubrid snakes through the use of both natural breeding methods and scent disguise to fool the different species to interbreed. Eleven different species of three different genera were used in this experiment. Results of the crosses were as expected to resemble midpoints of color and pattern between the parental species. Banding patterns appeared to be dominant over blotches and stripes. The most interesting finding was that the amelanistic varieties of the California kingsnake, L.g.californiae, and the corn snake, E.g.guttata are apparently allelic forms of amelanism regardless of the fact that these snakes are members of different genera. When the two genera were crossed this albinism appeared in the F1 generation. All types of the hybrids produced were viable and fertile. As such, they are most likely examples of intrabaraminic diversity of created “kinds” rather than evolutionary speciation. This paper adds viability, homologous genes, and pigment variations to the list of character space criteria for recognizing baramins.​

Oh my gosh, the technobabble for the purpose of obfuscation!!! IntrabaraWHOOO???

Close scrutiny and analysis of the FACTS of our genetics makes concluding common descent more problematic than ever. The facts do not align with perceptions.

Expand please. Show your work.

Here is a repost of #99, which was likely lost in the flurry of heckling and indignation, that this topic seems to attract.

"Here is a graphic that shows the structure of the chromosome.
I think perhaps the main problem is in understanding the complexity & inflexibility of the genetic structure.

"Inflexibility"? What do you mean by that? Any 2 humans differ by about 160 million bases.
is that not flexibility?

You cannot just take chromosomes from one organism, & plug them into another, or fuse them, or split them, to 'create' a new organism, with different genetic makeup. That is scientifically impossible, yet it is the central assertion of the ToE.

Again, I have never heard this, read this, or been taught this.
You will need to explain what you mean and provide references to have this assertion taken seriously. Here, for example, we see a HUGE amount of synteny bewteen human and chimp genomes (synteny being, in effect, the degree to which organisms share genome architecture).

The genes WITHIN the chromosomes are completely different, & do not correlate.

This is false. It is at odds with what is actually seen in human/chimp comparisons. See above.

Similarity does not imply descendancy.

It did when it was seen in mtGenomes in your Canidae post - why the double standards? Here is a primer on molecular phylogenetics - odd that in your 4 decades of study you never came across what such studies actually entail.
As I've already mentioned, shared, unique mutations are more informative than just plain old % similarity.

That is where the science of genetics has given us a more complete understanding of living things."

If there is interest, we could examine the complexities of dna, and the building blocks of life.

Sure - I cannot wait to see your treatment of the "complexities" of DNA. I am sure the content of this post is a good indication of the level of up to date sophistication we can anticipate.

I might suggest that among the reasons your initial posting of this did not garner much response is the amount of misinformation it it made it seem to much of a burden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ya... hard to justify the wasted energy - especially after reading his history at politicalforums... Brick wall action... Think I'll just keep reminding people that he asked for science, got it, and then dutifully ignored it and dodged it is a most shallow and desperate fashion.

I was feeding the Troll and the only trick performed was the same trick I had already seen. I admit, it would be nice to keep feeding it in the hopes that some sort of original thought and understanding might grow, but the Troll convinced me that is not going to happen. I do not see this troll interested in gaining insight or new understanding. The troll goal is based on the idea that it knows everything it needs to already and its job is to ridicule and bash anyone that does not blindly share in that limited intellectual scope.

The way I see it, the trolls will call this a win no matter what, but reasonable people reading this thread will see what happened. If they want to know more, they now have names of people that know valid information to ask about.

It was entertaining for a short while and it is an excellent example of Pigeon Chess.

I think some people getting tired of the Pigeon Chess and publicly stating that is also a continuation of the fight against the Tyranny of the Anti-intellectual Trolls.

I am no longer participating with the troll, but I am still participating and reading the posts of reasonable people with knowledge, understanding and reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup.
I present an argument based on several papers - he dismisses it as being 'too long' and a 'wall of text'.

I then break down that post into several individual posts, explaining the relevance of each citation. All ignored/dismissed with a smilie-laden 'What this stuff again?'-type of response.

I take his lengthy Canid posts, reply to each of his assertions with referenced rebuttals over three posts - all dismissed as 'too long' 'wall of text' and 'oh the ad homs!!!'

We'll see if he can answer some simple questions asked with NO commentary whatsoever. I'm betting more smilies and insults and no answers...

In Pigeon Chess, what you are describing is the Rock Dove Defense used exclusively and extensively by creationists. It is classic Pigeon Chess.