Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[tas8831]

False accusation. The only ones carrying on about credentials or Authority are the hecklers. Don't project your fallacies on me.

I have refuted this assertion of yours previously - that you will continue denying your own actions is about what I expect from righties.


Why was it, exactly, that you boasted of 40 years of study. then? Why was it that you claimed to "know the material", then? Why was it, then, that you have several times claimed that the 'problem' is that people don't understand genetics, accompanied by a quaint copy-paste of a cartoon depicting DNA packing, if NOT to imply that YOU are the only one that truly knows things?

Your projection is matched only by your bombast.

I deal in facts and reason, and have no need of fallacies..

Facts like how the Canid paper used "markers" in the mtDNA that you cannot point out, define or explain?
Facts like how you claim that the papers I have posted - all using mtGenomes just like your Canid paper - can be dismissed for reasons that you merely assert and cannot explain?

Those are not facts, they are your fantasy.

 

[tas8831]

Purely scientific question.

2. Given enough time, a mutation could have happened, to cause a verticle change in the genome, to create a new genetic architecture.

What do you mean by "genetic architecture"?

And why do you think such a change is required for evolution to proceed?

Feel free to copy paste walls of text - I am confident that I will be able to understand it.

 

[tas8831]

i see you are still afraid to debate me in a straight up, fact and science based discussion..

One will note that you are afraid to produce an adult, scientific discussion in which you explain and provide an evidence-based rationale for not accepting mtDNA phylogenies such as this:

"And btw, this phylogenetic tree has evidence to support it. The genetic lines can be traced, not just presumed."

 

[tas8831]

2. Phylogenetic Tree.
This is a graphical illustration of the BELIEF in common descent.

Even the one in the Canid paper you like so much?

Odd, since you claim the exact opposite for the phylogenetic tree in that paper.

Why the double standards?

Science and facts only, please.

 

[tas8831]

There is a lot of disinformation, bluff, and/or ignorance regarding mtDNA, and most of genetics.

Yes, indeed.

I can expand upon the significance and the definitions later, but will just make a few points, for now, as my time is limited.

Awesome. This will be most informative, I am sure.

1. There is a "marker' in mtDNA that shows descendancy.

And WHAT IS THAT "MARKER"? And why does it suddenly disappear when dealing with Primates of Carnivores in general?

Science answers only, please.

It is passed down from mother to daughter, and is scientific evidence of actual descendancy.. not something speculated or drawn in a graphic.

The 'graphic' like the one in your Canid paper?

Please provide the science and facts that make that 'graph' OK, but all others just fantasy.

Thanks.

2. This 'marker' reveals descendancy in the canid study i referenced earlier.

WHAT IS THE "MARKER", exactl;y?

The different branches of the KNOWN DESCENDANTS, are traced through the mtDNA .

How were they KNOWN prior to the phylohgenetic analyses being done?

Science answers only, please.

3. Some equids, felids, and other haplogroups can trace their own descendancy through this same mtDNA marker.

You forgot Primates, Carnivores, mammals, etc.

4. Hominids do NOT have a common marker.

Evidence please - your mere say-so is not sufficient.

Each distinct genotype among hominids has their own, distinct, unique mtDNA marker, and it does not crossover, as would be expected, if there was descendancy.

Sounds like trouble.

Surely you have a scientific reference demonstrating that this as-yet-undefined marker suddenly disappears when looking at humans?

Human beings can trace their mtDNA , which shows complete ancestral connections among every race and people group, debunking earlier theories of regional, separate evolution.

Evidence please.

5. There is NO EVIDENCE that apes, chimps, or any other hominid shared ancestry.

This is, I am sorry to say, a lie. I have presented genetic evidence, including genetically evidenced descendency charts in this very thread several times, and you have merely come up with reasons to avoid dealing with them.

Please stop lying.

That is conjectured, as part of the theory of common descent. The mtDNA only reveals humans as related to each other, with no connection to other hominids.

This does not stand to reason or to the evidence. This is just repeated, evidence-free assertion on your part. I would provide more evidence, but you would just dismiss it as 'too much text' or something.

6. There is only a 'looks like!', morphological speculation, from similarities in a few physical traits, but there is NOTHING in the genes to indicate common ancestry.

More falsehoods.

'Apes and humans both have thumbs! Therefore. evolution!'

Wow, that is totally accurate....

But as far as hard evidence? Nothing. There is only imagination, 'looks like!' plausibility, and speculation, to link humans and apes.

Please stop your desperate lying.

7. The ape-like reasoning ability and civility of some humans might imply descendancy, but there is no genetic evidence for it.

There is much such evidence - to include mtDNA 'markers'.

You are either seriously ignorant of the science, or just lying for Jesus.

Here is some of the genetic evidence you are ignorant of/ignore/reject out of desperation:

From: http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293

Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and X. F. Xu. 1996. Pattern and timing of evolutionary divergences among hominoids based on analyses of complete mtDNAs. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43:650-661.

Caccone, A. and J. R. Powell. 1989. DNA divergence among hominoids. Evolution 43:925-942.

Goodman, M., D. A. Tagle, D. H. A. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, and J. L. Slightom. 1990. Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 30:260-266.

Raaum, R. L., K. N. Sterner, C. M. Noviello, C. Stewart, and T. R. Disotell. 2005. Catarrhine primate divergence dates estimated from complete mitochondrial genomes: concordance with fossil and nuclear DNA evidence. J. Hum. Evol. 48: 237–257.

Ruvolo, M. 1997. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:515-540.

Steiper, M. E., N. M. Young, and T. Y. Sukarna. 2004. Genomic data support the hominoid slowdown and an Early Oligocene estimate for the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101(49):17021-17026.​

Just a sampling - and only genetic evidence - you know, the stuff you foolishly claim does not exist. Here is some more - these are just some genetic papers on only Hominoid phylogeny:

Hominidae

Bailey, W. 1993. Hominoid trichotomy: a molecular overview. Evolutionary Anthropology 2:100-108.

Chen, F. C., and W. H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 68:444–456.

Gagneux, P. 2004. A Pan-oramic view: insights into hominoid evolution through the chimpanzee genome. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(11):571-576.

Gagneux, P. and A. Varki. 2001. Genetic differences between humans and great apes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18:2?13.

Gagneux, P., C. Wills, U. Gerloff, D. Tautz, P. A. Morin, C. Boesch, B. Fruth, G. Hohmann, O. A. Ryder, and D. S. Woodruff. 1999. Mitochondrial sequences show diverse evolutionary histories of African hominoids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96:5077-5082.

Gonzalez, I. L. , J. E. Sylvester, T. F. Smith, D. Stambolian, and R. D. Schmickel. 1990. Ribosomal RNA gene sequences and hominoid phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 7:203-219.


Horai, S., Y. Satta, K. Hayasaka, R. Kondo, T. Inoue, T. Ishida, S. Hayashi, and N. Takahata. 1992. Man's place in hominoidea revealed by mitochondrial DNA genealogy. Journal of Molecular Evolution 35:32-43.

Rogers, J. 1993. The phylogenetic relationships among Homo, Pan and Gorilla: A population genetics perspective. Journal of Human Evolution 25: 201-215.

Ruvolo, M. 1997. Molecular phylogeny of the Hominoids: Inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:248-265.

Ruvolo, M., T. R. Disotell, M. W. Allard, W. M. Brown, and R. L. Honeycutt. 1991. Resolution of the African hominoid trichotomy by use of a mitochondrial gene sequence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 88:1570-1574.

Ruvolo, M., D. Pan, S. Zehr, T. Goldberg, T. R. Disotell, and M. von Dornum. 1994. Gene trees and hominoid phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 91:8900-8904.

Salem, A. H., D. A. Ray, J. Xing, P. A. Callinan, J. S. Myers, D. J. Hedges, R. K. Garber , D. J. Witherspoon, L. B. Jorde, and M. A. Batzer. 2003. Alu elements and hominid phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 100(22):12787-12791.

Takahata, N. and Y. Satta Y. 1997. Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 94:4811-4815.​

I know, I know - too much copy paste...

But this is how scientists support their assertions - by providing references that provide scientific evidence, not by merely saying so over and over like creationists do.

 

[tas8831]

But links and walls of text are deflections

You mean links to evidence and explanations that are more than 1 paragraph?

 

[tas8831]

3. Vestigiality.
The irrational, circular conclusion that unknown organs are 'vestigial', or remnants of a previous incarnation. I examined this argument in greater detail in post #402.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding

Scadding must have special influence over an entire field of science such that his opinion must represent the ultimate truth of the matter.

But, if Scadding is this important and influential, whatever shall we make of this:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar infundamental structure, position, and embryonic development, but not necessarily in function.... While homologies between animal specles suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding. 1981​

IOW, Scadding is saying vestigiality is hard to determine, so why bother when we can use plain old anatomical homology? Of note is his use of the word "special" - did you catch that? That is, he does not think vestigial organs are 'special evidence", because he thinks plain old homology is enough. But your YEC overlords only quote what they need to for propaganda purposes.

He is NOT claiming vestigial organs are not really vestigial, just that determining vestigiality can be subjective.

You really should read the actual paper instead of relying on YEC propagandists like you clearly do.


DO VESTIGIAL ORGANS PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION? S.R. Scadding

Of note, Scadding's take was rebutted by Naylor:

The paper was text-to-pdf-to-text-to-PDF, so I could not copy text as text, but as a picture, so I won't bother quoting any more, but that is the gist of it - Scadding used an idiosyncratic definition of vestigial, and actually considered them just a subset of homologous structures that are, in fact, evidence for evolution.

Scadding replied in 1982 and agreed that vestigial organs are evidence for evolution, but as homolgies as he claimed in his 1981 paper:

"I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."​

So, shall we take bets on whether or not usfan will correct his use of the Scadding quote?

I say he will double down. Anyone else?

 

[Jose Fly]

False accusation.

What's false? Are you no longer claiming to be an expert in evolutionary biology?

 

[Bear Wild]

Don't move the goalposts.
We were talking about diversity WITHIN the genes.. the 'potential' diversity that is expressed by what we see. But the RESULT of the diversification is LESS DIVERSITY within the branch tips. The chihuahua does NOT display the diversity that the ancestral canid HAD, as it has settled into a homogeneous morphology. The arctic wolf, also, does not display a wide range of variability, but is locked into a very narrow set of traits, from which to select.

Obviously, the canid ancestor HAD that diversity, at one time, and it revealed itself in a relatively short time.. too short, for 'Time and Mutation!' to conjure up all the diversity we see.

'Selection acts on existing variability'

Where is all this diversity, now? Do you see it in dingos? Coyotes? Mexican Grey wolves? Those are tips of the canid phylogenetic tree, and NO LONGER have the diversity of the ancestral population. Breed a few generations of ONLY st Barnards.. will you predict an arctic wolf to pop out? Will chihuahua traits suddenly appear? No. Unless you REINTRODUCE the variability that has been lost, by selective breeding, the clade can only produce the traits provided by the parent.

This is plainly obvious, standard breeding practices that have been observed for millennia. It completely contradicts the 'created new traits!' belief that comes with common descent.

First you ignore research given to you that addresses the genetic differences in dogs, village dogs and wolves with this site available to access. So see if you can understand this genetic comparison instead of ignoring it.
www.journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000451

Second you do not understand the influence of time between similar organisms separated from interbreeding for long period of times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, indeed.

Awesome. This will be most informative, I am sure.


And WHAT IS THAT "MARKER"? And why does it suddenly disappear when dealing with Primates of Carnivores in general?

Science answers only, please.



The 'graphic' like the one in your Canid paper?

Please provide the science and facts that make that 'graph' OK, but all others just fantasy.

Thanks.


WHAT IS THE "MARKER", exactl;y?


How were they KNOWN prior to the phylohgenetic analyses being done?

Science answers only, please.

You forgot Primates, Carnivores, mammals, etc.

Evidence please - your mere say-so is not sufficient.

Sounds like trouble.

Surely you have a scientific reference demonstrating that this as-yet-undefined marker suddenly disappears when looking at humans?

Evidence please.


This is, I am sorry to say, a lie. I have presented genetic evidence, including genetically evidenced descendency charts in this very thread several times, and you have merely come up with reasons to avoid dealing with them.

Please stop lying.

This does not stand to reason or to the evidence. This is just repeated, evidence-free assertion on your part. I would provide more evidence, but you would just dismiss it as 'too much text' or something.

More falsehoods.


Wow, that is totally accurate....

Please stop your desperate lying.

There is much such evidence - to include mtDNA 'markers'.

You are either seriously ignorant of the science, or just lying for Jesus.

Here is some of the genetic evidence you are ignorant of/ignore/reject out of desperation:

From: http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293

Arnason, U., A. Gullberg, A. Janke, and X. F. Xu. 1996. Pattern and timing of evolutionary divergences among hominoids based on analyses of complete mtDNAs. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43:650-661.

Caccone, A. and J. R. Powell. 1989. DNA divergence among hominoids. Evolution 43:925-942.

Goodman, M., D. A. Tagle, D. H. A. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, and J. L. Slightom. 1990. Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids. Journal of Molecular Evolution 30:260-266.

Raaum, R. L., K. N. Sterner, C. M. Noviello, C. Stewart, and T. R. Disotell. 2005. Catarrhine primate divergence dates estimated from complete mitochondrial genomes: concordance with fossil and nuclear DNA evidence. J. Hum. Evol. 48: 237–257.

Ruvolo, M. 1997. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:515-540.

Steiper, M. E., N. M. Young, and T. Y. Sukarna. 2004. Genomic data support the hominoid slowdown and an Early Oligocene estimate for the hominoid-cercopithecoid divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101(49):17021-17026.​

Just a sampling - and only genetic evidence - you know, the stuff you foolishly claim does not exist. Here is some more - these are just some genetic papers on only Hominoid phylogeny:

Hominidae

Bailey, W. 1993. Hominoid trichotomy: a molecular overview. Evolutionary Anthropology 2:100-108.

Chen, F. C., and W. H. Li. 2001. Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 68:444–456.

Gagneux, P. 2004. A Pan-oramic view: insights into hominoid evolution through the chimpanzee genome. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(11):571-576.

Gagneux, P. and A. Varki. 2001. Genetic differences between humans and great apes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18:2?13.

Gagneux, P., C. Wills, U. Gerloff, D. Tautz, P. A. Morin, C. Boesch, B. Fruth, G. Hohmann, O. A. Ryder, and D. S. Woodruff. 1999. Mitochondrial sequences show diverse evolutionary histories of African hominoids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96:5077-5082.

Gonzalez, I. L. , J. E. Sylvester, T. F. Smith, D. Stambolian, and R. D. Schmickel. 1990. Ribosomal RNA gene sequences and hominoid phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 7:203-219.


Horai, S., Y. Satta, K. Hayasaka, R. Kondo, T. Inoue, T. Ishida, S. Hayashi, and N. Takahata. 1992. Man's place in hominoidea revealed by mitochondrial DNA genealogy. Journal of Molecular Evolution 35:32-43.

Rogers, J. 1993. The phylogenetic relationships among Homo, Pan and Gorilla: A population genetics perspective. Journal of Human Evolution 25: 201-215.

Ruvolo, M. 1997. Molecular phylogeny of the Hominoids: Inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:248-265.

Ruvolo, M., T. R. Disotell, M. W. Allard, W. M. Brown, and R. L. Honeycutt. 1991. Resolution of the African hominoid trichotomy by use of a mitochondrial gene sequence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 88:1570-1574.

Ruvolo, M., D. Pan, S. Zehr, T. Goldberg, T. R. Disotell, and M. von Dornum. 1994. Gene trees and hominoid phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 91:8900-8904.

Salem, A. H., D. A. Ray, J. Xing, P. A. Callinan, J. S. Myers, D. J. Hedges, R. K. Garber , D. J. Witherspoon, L. B. Jorde, and M. A. Batzer. 2003. Alu elements and hominid phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 100(22):12787-12791.

Takahata, N. and Y. Satta Y. 1997. Evolution of the primate lineage leading to modern humans: Phylogenetic and demographic inferences from DNA sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 94:4811-4815.​

I know, I know - too much copy paste...

But this is how scientists support their assertions - by providing references that provide scientific evidence, not by merely saying so over and over like creationists do.

I really enjoy his claim that he will expand on things later. Apparently later either means it is never going to happen, since it hasn't so far, or he is scheduling responses for years in advance.

How dare you provide scientific information in response to claims that the OP wants scientific information. You are moving the goal posts, heckling, being snarky, and all that stuff from the ad hominem connecty wall chart thingy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's false? Are you no longer claiming to be an expert in evolutionary biology?

Perhaps it is finally clear that the evidence was not taking anyone to the claimed conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Purely scientific question.
What do you mean by "genetic architecture"?

And why do you think such a change is required for evolution to proceed?

Feel free to copy paste walls of text - I am confident that I will be able to understand it.

I prefer the term genetic infrastructure. It could be used repeatedly in the same way without defining what is meant by the term. It would still perform the same service of false authority, confusion and plausible deniability, but is a bit more contemporary.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps it is finally clear that the evidence was not taking anyone to the claimed conclusion.

Well, I mean come on.....how many times have we seen this same creationist act?

Creationist issues challenge: Show me the evidence for evolution/common descent!

People line up and provide evidence.

Creationist ignores some of it and makes up goofy reasons to waive away the rest.

People call out the creationist for their ridiculous and dishonest behavior.

Creationist plays martyr, says no one has met his challenge and all anyone can do is attack him personally, then declares victory.

Everyone else begins talking among themselves about what just happened.​

Any person who's been around these debates long enough has seen this same pattern repeated countless times. Now, I realize that for some folks the creationist making the challenge isn't their intended audience, and their posts are instead for any undecided "lurkers" who might be out there, which is fine (although I do question the concept of any sane, rational "lurker" potentially finding the likes of usfan at all persuasive).

But one thing that always stands out to me in these situations is why hardly anyone (or more commonly, no one) asks the creationist why he gets to be the one who decides what is and isn't valid evidence? Deeje used to do the exact same thing, where she would declare that since no one had provided any evidence that she found persuasive, then it must be that no evidence for evolution/common ancestry exists! I tried asking her a few times why she anointed herself the ultimate judge of scientific evidence, but she ignored the question every single time.

So that's a question that I'd like to see @usfan answer....

It's obvious you don't find the evidence that's been presented to be persuasive. Why do you think that carries any significance beyond shaping your individual, personal opinion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I mean come on.....how many times have we seen this same creationist act?

Creationist issues challenge: Show me the evidence for evolution/common descent!

People line up and provide evidence.

Creationist ignores some of it and makes up goofy reasons to waive away the rest.

People call out the creationist for their ridiculous and dishonest behavior.

Creationist plays martyr, says no one has met his challenge and all anyone can do is attack him personally, then declares victory.

Everyone else begins talking among themselves about what just happened.​

Any person who's been around these debates long enough has seen this same pattern repeated countless times. Now, I realize that for some folks the creationist making the challenge isn't their intended audience, and their posts are instead for any undecided "lurkers" who might be out there, which is fine (although I do question the concept of any sane, rational "lurker" potentially finding the likes of usfan at all persuasive).

But one thing that always stands out to me in these situations is why hardly anyone (or more commonly, no one) asks the creationist why he gets to be the one who decides what is and isn't valid evidence? Deeje used to do the exact same thing, where she would declare that since no one had provided any evidence that she found persuasive, then it must be that no evidence for evolution/common ancestry exists! I tried asking her a few times why she anointed herself the ultimate judge of scientific evidence, but she ignored the question every single time.

So that's a question that I'd like to see @usfan answer....

It's obvious you don't find the evidence that's been presented to be persuasive. Why do you think that carries any significance beyond shaping your individual, personal opinion?

I do not think you are going to get a rational, reasonable answer. I think you will get no answer at all. But those of us that have seen this scenario played out exactly the same way on numerous stages have little expectation to see it end differently.

Her. There is no way to have a reasonable discussion with Deeje. All the vast conspiracy theories, nonsense and arrogance. I wonder how it is that people with that sort of mentality consider themselves to be witnesses for their beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scadding must have special influence over an entire field of science such that his opinion must represent the ultimate truth of the matter.

But, if Scadding is this important and influential, whatever shall we make of this:

"Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs, i.e. structures similar infundamental structure, position, and embryonic development, but not necessarily in function.... While homologies between animal specles suggest a common origin, the argument, given above asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution. Our knowledge of anatomy, necessary to identify homologies, is based on straightforward observation of adult or embryonic structure. However, when one begins to investigate the function of these structures necessary to identify vestigiality, the situation is not so clear. In many cases the functions of minor structures are not well understood. Identification of function is often based on experimental procedures, the results of which require some interpretation." ~zoologist S. R. Scadding. 1981​

IOW, Scadding is saying vestigiality is hard to determine, so why bother when we can use plain old anatomical homology? Of note is his use of the word "special" - did you catch that? That is, he does not think vestigial organs are 'special evidence", because he thinks plain old homology is enough. But your YEC overlords only quote what they need to for propaganda purposes.

He is NOT claiming vestigial organs are not really vestigial, just that determining vestigiality can be subjective.

You really should read the actual paper instead of relying on YEC propagandists like you clearly do.


DO VESTIGIAL ORGANS PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION? S.R. Scadding

Of note, Scadding's take was rebutted by Naylor:

View attachment 31542

The paper was text-to-pdf-to-text-to-PDF, so I could not copy text as text, but as a picture, so I won't bother quoting any more, but that is the gist of it - Scadding used an idiosyncratic definition of vestigial, and actually considered them just a subset of homologous structures that are, in fact, evidence for evolution.

Scadding replied in 1982 and agreed that vestigial organs are evidence for evolution, but as homolgies as he claimed in his 1981 paper:

"I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality."​

So, shall we take bets on whether or not usfan will correct his use of the Scadding quote?

I say he will double down. Anyone else?

I am going with double down.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do not think you are going to get a rational, reasonable answer.

Yeah, I'm not expecting one although I am curious.

I think you will get no answer at all.

That's the easiest path for him to take for sure.

Her. There is no way to have a reasonable discussion with Deeje. All the vast conspiracy theories, nonsense and arrogance. I wonder how it is that people with that sort of mentality consider themselves to be witnesses for their beliefs.

To be fair, I can't recall very many internet creationists with whom it is possible to have a reasonable discussion. But that makes sense, since creationism itself is a very unreasonable position. We may as well be pondering why it's so difficult to have reasonable discussions with flat-earthers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I'm not expecting one although I am curious.


That's the easiest path for him to take for sure.


To be fair, I can't recall very many internet creationists with whom it is possible to have a reasonable discussion. But that makes sense, since creationism itself is a very unreasonable position. We may as well be pondering why it's so difficult to have reasonable discussions with flat-earthers.

These are just examples of an entire class of people that cannot or refuse to critically review information and examine the validity of their own views. They seem to be emotionally satisfied with whatever it is that they have chosen to believe and cannot think outside of that. Most members of this group will go to extremes to promote their own position, including means that are obvious for reliance on logical fallacies and deceit. Those claiming to be Christians among this group should be appalled at their own actions. To see them use tactics that are supposed to be abhorred by Christians and even prohibited for Christians to turn too is ironic, hypocritical and sinful by Christian standards. Yet they are readily and regularly the tactics and the basis of Christian creationist strategies in assertions of the denial of science.

I have never met one that you could have a reasonable discussion with, or at least none that I was aware of. On the other hand, I know many Christians that accept science and even work in science. They are not plagued with the deification of scripture that festers the mind and turns people against ordinary and rational views based on evidence and sound principles.

 

[Jose Fly]

These are just examples of an entire class of people that cannot or refuse to critically review information and examine the validity of their own views. They seem to be emotionally satisfied with whatever it is that they have chosen to believe and cannot think outside of that. Most members of this group will go to extremes to promote their own position, including means that are obvious for reliance on logical fallacies and deceit.

All very true. As one of my older internet friends used to say, humans have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion, especially when their emotional well-being is at stake.

I go back and forth between thinking of creationists in a "there's something fundamentally wrong with them" way, and a "they're just scared at the prospect of losing the defining aspect of their entire life" way. Several times Deeje described to me the consequences that would ensue if she ever acknowledged evolution/common ancestry to true.....a loss of faith, abandonment by her friends and family, even complete loss of purpose for her life. It doesn't get any more consequential than that! But whenever I tried approaching the discussion from that angle, she immediately shut it down.

So obviously there are some very significant psychological factors behind the bizarre behaviors we see from creationists.

Those claiming to be Christians among this group should be appalled at their own actions. To see them use tactics that are supposed to be abhorred by Christians and even prohibited for Christians to turn too is ironic, hypocritical and sinful by Christian standards. Yet they are readily and regularly the tactics and the basis of Christian creationist strategies in assertions of the denial of science.

That is one thing that really baffles me. I've raised the issue with other Christians at times and asked them why they were so focused on the behaviors of non-Christians, while the creationists in their own camp were ten times worse. I can't recall ever getting a good answer.

I have never met one that you could have a reasonable discussion with, or at least none that I was aware of.

I have...twice. In both cases we ended by shaking hands and agreeing that we just have very different ways of thinking and looking at the world.

On the other hand, I know many Christians that accept science and even work in science. They are not plagued with the deification of scripture that festers the mind and turns people against ordinary and rational views based on evidence and sound principles.

Yup. It's too bad the crazies tend to get the stage more often.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All very true. As one of my older internet friends used to say, humans have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion, especially when their emotional well-being is at stake.

Indeed. Sometimes even the more intelligent among us too.

I go back and forth between thinking of creationists in a "there's something fundamentally wrong with them" way, and a "they're just scared at the prospect of losing the defining aspect of their entire life" way. Several times Deeje described to me the consequences that would ensue if she ever acknowledged evolution/common ancestry to true.....a loss of faith, abandonment by her friends and family, even complete loss of purpose for her life. It doesn't get any more consequential than that! But whenever I tried approaching the discussion from that angle, she immediately shut it down.

So obviously there are some very significant psychological factors behind the bizarre behaviors we see from creationists.

That is nuts. Then her belief is not based on faith, but on threats. Not a very sound basis for establishing a philosophy of life. When the congregants have to be threatened and coerced, it is not a religion. It is a cult. A person should be able to leave a religion as easily as they joined it. And welcomed back if they changer their minds.

That is one thing that really baffles me. I've raised the issue with other Christians at times and asked them why they were so focused on the behaviors of non-Christians, while the creationists in their own camp were ten times worse. I can't recall ever getting a good answer.

Your question and variations have come to my mind regularly over the years. Personally, I do not overlook creationist misbehavior just because many happen to be Christian. As a Christian, they are supposed to be better than that or at least try.

In the same vein, I often wonder why some Christians feel so threatened by what others believe. It is not like belief by others is suddenly going to change a Christian into something else or drive them from the church. They feel threatened about things that are either no business of theirs or no threat. Sometimes, I think it is a smarmy interest in things that they are not supposed to be interested in.

I have...twice. In both cases we ended by shaking hands and agreeing that we just have very different ways of thinking and looking at the world.

There has to be a few out there. I just have not run across any yet.

One of my biggest--for lack of a better term--pet peeves, is denying science and trying to replace valid scientific explanations with pseudoscience and belief. Like any scientist, I try to minimize my own bias as much as possible, but creationists do not even appear to understand that their belief is a belief based on faith and not on evidence. I find science to be excellent common ground to talk to people from different countries, cultures, beliefs or no belief at all. For creationists it is foreign ground where they wage wars.

Yup. It's too bad the crazies tend to get the stage more often.

They are as true today as when they were first coined. The empty can rattles the most and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Combine the two and you have a creationist.

 

[Thief]

Even more simply put - you got caught paraphrasing some silly creationist video that you didn't understand, and are now desperately employing the fallacy of shifting the burden so as your ignorance on the subject will be hidden. Well, sorry, that isn't working - your antics make it perfectly clear that you are clueless.

You see, I DO understand the concept of probability. I have taken statistics and employ such concepts when needed. And THAT is how I know you are bluffing/paraphrasing YEC crap.

YOU made a declaration regarding probability and complexity.

That YOU cannot explain it is very

demonstrative....

of where

you stand...


Waste of time.

got an iq125?
and I've been doing this for a very long time

and probability and complexity have been demonstrated ……..a lot
try watching some science demos

you might learn something