The Miracle of Water.

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps you can tell me what ID scientists present as evidence, and their argument. You should be able to manage that, at least.

The person has not said anything about the Devil being a part of the animal kingdom.
The person is presenting what is to them a fact, a truth, which they have come to accept, and they are telling you as it is written in their book of truth - that because you reject truth and reject God, you are a fool, and a child of the Devil.
So, please explain why you don't accept that.

Of course, I assume, you are aware that everyone do not agree on the same philosophy.
People have various beliefs about life, and what it is, as well as many other things.
So to tell someone that they must believe what you believe seems to me the same as shoving a document in their face, and saying, you are this or that, according to what's written here.
Would you attempt to travel to Sentinel Island, and preach your philosophy to the tribes there?

What they present is the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[metis]

That's as far as my evolution goes. In fact, that's as far as any human evolution has ever been.
How long is it supposed to take?
Not so fast -- researchers find that lasting evolutionary change takes about one million years

What evidence is there of multiple ongoing beneficial mutation changes is organism? Does the fossil record contain any?

Both the fossil record and the d.n.a. comparative analysis are consistent in that the ancestral split between apes and humans appears to be around 6=7 million years ago. The Chad find about a decade ago is of an individual that shares so many human and ape characteristics that they've had difficulty classifying him, which is what we should expect to happen when we near that bridging time.

This is what the scientific evidence tell us at this point, so let me ask you where is your evidence that this could not be the case? Also, common sense should tell one that a mutation could potentially be beneficial almost immediately. As for "beneficial mutations", compare a modern human brain with the early stages of Homo erectus and you'll see that the brain size nearly doubles.

The evidence for human evolution is so overwhelming that no serious scientist doubts it today, especially anyone familiar with the fossil record or even just basic genetics.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'll just cling to my theory

You should, since it's consistent with the research.

The more important that religious beliefs are to a person, the less likely is the possibility of moving the line. Barring some traumatic event, I think once a person has reached his/her thirties, that line will never move.

Definitely. I don't think we should ever underestimate the psychological and emotional stakes at play for creationists. It was you or someone else who recently linked to the "for teens" Jehovah's Witness page on evolution where the very first sentence was something like "if evolution is true, life has no purpose".

Some years ago, I knew a man who had a sign in his office - God Said It - I Believe It - End of Story. I kind of admire that honesty.

Yep. The only creationist I've ever really considered to be honest with me was one who told me right up front that, because he believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, he didn't care one bit what any science or data showed. If God's Word says God created everything distinctly in 6 days, then that's what happened....period.

Like you, I appreciated his honesty. We actually had some good conversations after that.

On the other hand, there are people, we see them here, who, for some reason, can not express this honesty. Instead, they will try, feebly, to argue against the science. For the most part, the use variations of the tired old "Ya cain't prove elivution" argument.

I rarely debate science with these people anymore. It's futile. They will not - they can not, accept science where it conflicts with their ingrained religious beliefs.

Agreed. The only value I see in it is the entertainment that comes from watching someone's reaction after being shown something that they insisted didn't exist. And I confess, I find it absolutely fascinating at times.

 

[ecco]

Funny thing - I never 'taught' my kids evolution or atheism. My oldest used to attend church services with her friend for over a year when she was pretty young. She came to her own conclusions about religion. My youngest figured it all out on his own.

Pretty similar to my own experience.

 

[ecco]

... her little friend used to say some pretty disturbing things, like "If you don't believe in God, you will die." She was told that in her church. Talk about indoctrination. Fear is a powerful brainwashing tool, and the religious wield it like a cudgel.

And we see the results right here every day.

 

[tas8831]

What is your interpretation of this:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says.
Blah blah blah provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships.

So in my simple way of putting it...
"By looking at this data - data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice, we can examine it along with the trees we drew up, and see what they can tell us.

FAIL #1 - misrepresentation of the process of phylogenetic tree reconstruction

The data was used to PRODUCE the trees - the trees are not 'drawn up' first. You really are this clueless about the evidence that you imply sufficient knowledge of to dismiss?

The lineages of those 24 strains of mouse are KNOWN. The methods of reconstructing (not drawing, not guessing, not imagining) those trees were tested using genetic data to see whether these methods would reproduce the known relationships.

Guess you missed that, despite claiming "There is no need for interpretation here. It simply means what it says."

You probably should have stopped there.

No, the gene tree, and the species tree are not accurate but there are not all that bad.

FAIL #2 - whaaa? - misrepresentation of the content of the abstract for rhetorical purposes

"The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains..."

IOW, using protein coding genes in the analysis EXACTLY reproduced the known relationships (i.e., the species tree).

At least they are far better than the hypothesized phylogenetic tree, since we can actually observe some of these events where species reproduce and adapt. Thus the loci can help us in our research about ancestral populations.

FAIL #3 - misrepresentation and confabulation of abstract content to disparage authors and prop up silly beliefs

There is no mention of any hypothesized phylogenetic tree because the phylogeny of the test taxon was KNOWN. The ACTUAL goal of the work was stated in the first sentence, which you are dutifully misrepresenting:

"Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees..."

There are 24 inbred strains of mice used for scientific research; for what I hope are obvious reasons, very precise data on the relationships of these mice is known; genetic data on these strains is also known; this paper sought to use the genetic data to test phylogenetic tree reconstruction algorithms.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp, and why do you feel compelled to try to denigrate and misrepresent the work?

However, there are still problems that get in the way of accuracy. No problem though."

FAIL #4 - misrepresentation of the conclusions

The abstract itself contradicts that rather foolish 'interpretation' -

"The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains..."

Get it? Protein coding genes accurately reproduced the known relationships.

As is the creationist's wont, you looked for an out, and saw this:

"...however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities."

That might be a problem is those loci were used in such studies, wouldn't it? Such loci accumulate lineage-specific mutations at high rates. The results of this (and other similar papers) showed actual scientists that the use of such loci should be undertaken with caution. Larger datasets, more expansive sequence data, etc., can overcome such obstacles. But how would you know, since you only ever cherry pick actual science and/or take creationist rhetoric at face value?

When gene copies are sampled from various species, the resulting gene tree might disagree with the containing species tree.The primary causes of gene tree and species tree discord include incomplete lineage sorting, horizontal gene transfer, and gene duplication and loss. Each of these events yields a different parsimony criterion for inferring the (containing) species tree from gene trees. With incomplete lineage sorting, species tree inference is to find the tree minimizing extra gene lineages that had to coexist along species lineages; with gene duplication, it becomes to find the tree minimizing gene duplications and/or losses.

Why no quotation marks?

Perhaps you see differently.

FAIL #5 - self-pwn

Do you even understand what any of that means?

If you did, I am pretty sure that you would not have linked or pasted from it - not to mention that since it came from a foreign journal, the translation was a bit wonky (you didn't notice that?).

That paper is explaining means of adjusting analytical criteria when using certain types of data.

Why did you think that paper in any way countered what I had presented, and why did you so blatantly misrepresent the paper I referred to?

Do you think that I do not understand this stuff any better than you?

You could have taken the honest route, and just written "I do not understand, and therefore do not base my rejection of evolution on evidence or science. God did it, I believe it, and that is that, and I am a-scared of Hell, so I believe what my pastors order me to believe."


And Deeje thinks WE are 'condescending'....

 

[tas8831]

Consider this.
Someone walks up to you, shoves a Bible in your face...
Reads...
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt; their acts are vile. There is no one who does good.
Then says...
You are a fool.

Or they read this one...
John 8:42-47
...and then says, "You are a child of the Devil."

Would you accept that? Why not?

What is to accept?

I would say "What middle eastern cult does NOT claim that those that do not follow it are wrong? "

I would then ask them about Hosea 13:16 "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." and ask why they worship so bloodthirsty a thug.

 

[tas8831]

Atheist raise children. Evolutionist raise children.
The former does not believe in God, the latter believes in evolution.
So some children grow up not being taught anything about God, and some grow up believing that life evolved from unguided natural processes.

Do you understand?

And it seems that the child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to murder George Till. The child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to plant a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. The child of only one of those sets of parents grew up to anoint Trump as having been chosen by God - a twice divorced serial adulterer and worshiper of money.

You asked me this... What kind of atheist brainwashing was Hitler involved in?

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."

 

[Deeje]

Right next to where the bible explains where Cain and Abel's wives came from.

Hmmmm....Able had a wife??? I don't recall reading about one...he was murdered by his brother before either of them took a wife. So, does the Bible explain where Cain got his wife?.....yes it does.

Genesis 5:4 says: “And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters."

Cain apparently took a wife from among the "daughters" who are not actually named in scripture. This is not unusual as there were no laws in place preventing siblings from marrying and having children in those early times. Many of the Hebrew men took their half sisters in marriage. Abraham for example....Sarah was his half sister. Jacob married his cousins.

If God created an original pair, as he stated, and told them to fill the earth with their "kind", then what other way was there to fulfill the mandate? Genetic purity would have precluded any abnormalities in offspring.

Also, it does not state what age the brothers were when Cain committed his crime, so because it is mentioned in scripture that many of the early Bible characters were sometimes hundreds of years old when they became parents, it is quite possible that many sisters came into the world and married their brothers, uncles, cousins.....it wasn't until the Law was given through Moses, thousands of years later, that incest was made illegal.

Where in the bible is there an explanation for the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic molecules as would be required to make a man from dust?

Does science know the answer to that question? Does science know how life began? We have a belief....what do you have?

Tell me about this "reproductive programming".

It's what keeps the various "kinds" within their taxonomic family.
It's why cats give birth to cats and horses give birth to horses or in some instances mules (still closely related in the equine family and the result of forced breeding.)

Offspring of mixed breeds are invariably sterile. There is an end to these genetic lines. In the wild, there is no evidence that any close breeds will mate if a female of their own species is available. Science makes educated guesses about a lot of things but cannot provide proof for any of their assumptions.

So much fact-based science! Totally not a human interpretation! Explain please.

Since bacteria can adapt to external factors that threaten their survival, like all other creatures on this planet, we see that small adaptative changes result in the survival of the species. The Peppered Moth is a favourite example of "evolution" but it is the adaptive ability of the moth to survive in a changed environment. All it did was change colour to match the darker bark of the trees affected by pollution. When the pollution problem was resolved, the moths returned to their original colour. They never stopped being Peppered Moths though, did they?

Why would acquiring antibiotic resistance change it to a new organism?

Exactly. Acquiring new characteristics does not place the organism into a different taxonomic family. A new species that emerges from a change in food source or environment is still a member of that family. They have remained within their "kind". This is what the Bible teaches....and I t is what nature tells us.

Yes - different enough from each other that they warranted new taxonomic classifications.

A new classification is not a new family though...is it? It is only a new variety within one family and no matter how much time elapses, that will not change....science assumes it can, but it has no real proof.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

My best guess is because they are wrong - because there is no intelligent designer. That's probably also why there is no evidence for Bigfoot.

There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory

Either you haven't looked or haven't seen. The evidence is there, and it's overwhelming. Have you read about human chromosome 2?

good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science.

ID is considered pseudoscience not just by the scientific community, but the American court system since Dover.

I certainly am no animal.

If you are alive, you are either an animal, a plant, fungus, protozoan (protist), or a bacterium (monera). Pick one.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

For some reason you have me taking the opposite viewpoint from that which I actually have. In reality, I'm a retired anthropologist who taught about human evolution, and the ToE in general, for about 30 years.

My sincerest apology. I must of had a senior's moment while conversing with "nPeace". I will be more careful in the future. Again, sorry.

 

[ecco]

Cain apparently took a wife from among the "daughters" who are not actually named in scripture. This is not unusual as there were no laws in place preventing siblings from marrying and having children in those early times.

Do you tell your children about the good old days when boys could have sex with their sisters?

 

[tas8831]

Hmmmm....Able had a wife??? I don't recall reading about one...he was murdered by his brother before either of them took a wife.

Oh, you got me - I am no bible scholar.

So, does the Bible explain where Cain got his wife?.....yes it does.

Genesis 5:4 says: “And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters."

So it was one big... incestuous family, eh?

Cain apparently took a wife from among the "daughters" who are not actually named in scripture. This is not unusual as there were no laws in place preventing siblings from marrying and having children in those early times.

Good times had by all!
Why do you think those 'laws' came about? Is there a biological reason, maybe? Reasons that the fabricators of Jehovah didn't know about?

Many of the Hebrew men took their half sisters in marriage. Abraham for example....Sarah was his half sister. Jacob married his cousins.

All in the family! Let's worship!

Anyway, you have it all tied up nice and neat, yet there are many that are not so easily mollified...

Even you concoct a bunch of extra-biblical suppositions and guesses to save the obvious fail of the Genesis myths.

Funny how readily you accept so much guesswork when propping up your middle eastern myths.

Where in the bible is there an explanation for the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic molecules as would be required to make a man from dust?

Does science know the answer to that question?

Why would science know the answer to the Creation question? Don't you have a bunch of creation scientists who should be looking into this?
Are you admitting that you have NO IDEA how Jehovah turned inorganic dust into a fully grown man?

Yet you BELIEVE it without question?

Huh...

Does science know how life began? We have a belief....what do you have?

You have a belief based on ancient middle eastern numerologists tall tales and borrowed mythology.

I have no idea - doesn't bother me not to know. But we do at least have people doing research on abiogenesis (which is not part of evolution, as so many creationists try, out of desperation or ignorance, to claim it is). And discoveries have forced creationists to walk back many of their proclamations - i.e., their deity keeps getting forced into a smaller and smaller box. Which I find hilarious.
Discoveries like abiotically synthesized purines and pyrimidines (and the same found in meteorites), and, well, I won't enumerate them all, but here is a link to the related work done just by one dude and his collaborators: Robert Hazen.

And you have middle eastern tall tales. Sad...

Tell me about this "reproductive programming".

It's what keeps the various "kinds" within their taxonomic family.

WHAT keeps them?

It's why cats give birth to cats and horses give birth to horses or in some instances mules (still closely related in the equine family and the result of forced breeding.)

WHAT is?

You are just re-stating your assertion. That is not any sort of explanation.

Offspring of mixed breeds are invariably sterile.

Mixed breeds? Sterile? Invariably?

CITATION NEEDED.

There is an end to these genetic lines. In the wild, there is no evidence that any close breeds will mate if a female of their own species is available.

Irrelevant - how, exactly, do you think changes in species occurs?

Science makes educated guesses about a lot of things but cannot provide proof for any of their assumptions.

You keep writing things like this, even as you "explain" your case by merely restating the same guess-and-faith-based assertions.

What proof can you provide for YOUR assumptions?

Why do people like you always employ double standards, demanding from others that which you cannot even begin to present yourself?

CONCLUSION: Deeje the creationist CANNOT explain anything about her assertion, much less provide evidence.

Got it.

So much fact-based science! Totally not a human interpretation! Explain please.

Since bacteria can adapt to external factors that threaten their survival, like all other creatures on this planet, we see that small adaptative changes result in the survival of the species. The Peppered Moth is a favourite example of "evolution" but it is the adaptive ability of the moth to survive in a changed environment. All it did was change colour to match the darker bark of the trees affected by pollution. When the pollution problem was resolved, the moths returned to their original colour. They never stopped being Peppered Moths though, did they?

Blah blah blah - do you ALWAYS respond with a wall of diversionary text when you get called out on an ignorant claim?

You wrote:

"They adapted to antibiotics by making themselves immune to them."

None of what you wrote even comes close to explaining how bacteria "make themselves immune".

But I do thank you for providing yet another piece of evidence for your lack of basic knowledge of biology.

Why would acquiring antibiotic resistance change it to a new organism?

Exactly. Acquiring new characteristics does not place the organism into a different taxonomic family.

Hold on, Dr.Moreau - who said anything about a taxonomic family? Is taxonomy yet another area that you think you know more than you really do?

What about maybe... a different species?

Why the jump to family?

YOU are the one that mentioned how acquiring antibiotic resistance is not a new family - NO biologist would be so ignorant as to suggest such a thing.

Is your misrepresentation due to ignorance or malice?

A new species that emerges from a change in food source or environment is still a member of that family.

No kidding. Who said otherwise?

They have remained within their "kind". This is what the Bible teaches....and I t is what nature tells us.

The bible also tells us bats are birds, so...

Curious - does your antic of conflation and misrepresentation followed by implicit claims of vindication impress your fellow Christians? Because I find it rather off-putting.

Yes - different enough from each other that they warranted new taxonomic classifications.

A new classification is not a new family though...is it?

Show me where I or anyone else said it was.

It is only a new variety within one family and no matter how much time elapses, that will not change....

Please provide documentation for THAT ^^^^^^ assertion - and not like how you explained your other assertion above by just re-stating it.

You seem to rely ENTIRELY on guesses, assumptions, assertions, etc. - maybe that is why you accuse everyone else of doing this - you figure you do it all the time, everyone else must also.

science assumes it can, but it has no real proof.

And your proof for the existence of Jehovah the tribal deity is....???

Do not demand of others that which you cannot provide for your own claims.

Now stop making unsupported assertions and act like an adult.

Go ahead - I dare you to claim evolution has no evidence...

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Hmmmm....Able had a wife??? I don't recall reading about one...he was murdered by his brother before either of them took a wife. So, does the Bible explain where Cain got his wife?.....yes it does.

Genesis 5:4 says: “And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters."

Cain apparently took a wife from among the "daughters" who are not actually named in scripture. This is not unusual as there were no laws in place preventing siblings from marrying and having children in those early times. Many of the Hebrew men took their half sisters in marriage. Abraham for example....Sarah was his half sister. Jacob married his cousins.

If God created an original pair, as he stated, and told them to fill the earth with their "kind", then what other way was there to fulfill the mandate? Genetic purity would have precluded any abnormalities in offspring.

Also, it does not state what age the brothers were when Cain committed his crime, so because it is mentioned in scripture that many of the early Bible characters were sometimes hundreds of years old when they became parents, it is quite possible that many sisters came into the world and married their brothers, uncles, cousins.....it wasn't until the Law was given through Moses, thousands of years later, that incest was made illegal.



Does science know the answer to that question? Does science know how life began? We have a belief....what do you have?



It's what keeps the various "kinds" within their taxonomic family.
It's why cats give birth to cats and horses give birth to horses or in some instances mules (still closely related in the equine family and the result of forced breeding.)

Offspring of mixed breeds are invariably sterile. There is an end to these genetic lines. In the wild, there is no evidence that any close breeds will mate if a female of their own species is available. Science makes educated guesses about a lot of things but cannot provide proof for any of their assumptions.



Since bacteria can adapt to external factors that threaten their survival, like all other creatures on this planet, we see that small adaptative changes result in the survival of the species. The Peppered Moth is a favourite example of "evolution" but it is the adaptive ability of the moth to survive in a changed environment. All it did was change colour to match the darker bark of the trees affected by pollution. When the pollution problem was resolved, the moths returned to their original colour. They never stopped being Peppered Moths though, did they?



Exactly. Acquiring new characteristics does not place the organism into a different taxonomic family. A new species that emerges from a change in food source or environment is still a member of that family. They have remained within their "kind". This is what the Bible teaches....and I t is what nature tells us.



A new classification is not a new family though...is it? It is only a new variety within one family and no matter how much time elapses, that will not change....science assumes it can, but it has no real proof.

Not sure what you mean by Genetic purity, but it sounds very similar to racial purity. Any pure genetic species, would eventually become extinct, just like the other 99.999% of other species that couldn't adapt. When you say "kind", do you mean the Biblical "kind", or the clade "kind"? There is no such thing as "kind" in any of the Kindoms. If you believe there is, then take the phylogeny challenge.

Do you understand how a pine tree and a whale are related? How about a mosquito and a rose? If fact, every biological system is in some way related to each other. There is only one KIND of life. Life.​

 

[tas8831]

Hmmmm....Able had a wife???

Weird that in this response, you totally deleted a big chunk of my post and ignored it - well, here it is:

AGAIN, I present you with science that you asked for then dismissed because I didn't dumb it down for you:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



You see, all of this is premised on just a couple of basic observations:
1.mutations happen
2. mutations occur randomly
3. offspring possess mutations that their parents do not have
3a. these unique mutations can be passed on to offspring
4. patterns of shared, unique mutations are indicative of descent

Very simple, very elegant, very true. Very frightening to religious people pretending to know more about science than they really do, who regardless put their fallible human interpretations of ancient middle eastern tall tales above all else...[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

So, does the Bible explain where Cain got his wife?.....yes it does.

Genesis 5:4 says: “And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters."

So it was one big... incestuous family, eh?

If we read the bible as factual history from God to Moses some things are very clear and some are, at best, vague.

Cain killed Abel. - Clear!
Cain found a wife - Huh? How?

People lived for hundreds of years
Incest was acceptable​

Hmm.

​

However, if we recognize that the bible is a bunch of campfire tales passed on from generation to generation, we can see the context.

Old wise man: ... and Cain killed his brother Abel.
Youngster: Then what happened?
Old wise man: Then Cain left the hood and found himself a wife.
Youngster: Wait a minute, how could Cain have found a wife?
Old wise man: Uh, well, Cain's parents, A&E, had a lot of children, some were girls. Cain married one of them.
Youngster: Whoa - does that mean I can marry my sister?
Old wise man: No. (cough - cough) It means it's time to go to sleep and get ready for tomorrow's hunt. No more silly questions.

 

[nPeace]

Not sure what you want me to accept. I personally accept I am an animal and have no problem with that.

Well Hurray for you. Did you do a dance skip and a hop?

I do not believe in the devil so do not understand that reference. I have no plans to travel to Sentinel Island and I am sure the tribes their have their own philosophy with out me intruding. The acceptance of the term animal is basic biology not religion the same as a tree accepting it is a plant. I do not understand why you have such an aversion to the word animal. I suspect it may have to do with a feeling of superiority over other life since I have heard that argument before but that is just a feeling.
What I do not also understand is that if you will not accept basic biologic taxonomy then how would you be able to accept any scientific evidence that could connect you with the rest of this beautiful world thus it is clear why you do not like the word evolution. It indicates a connection with the over living things of this earth and I suppose you want to be special and above all the rest of life.

If I repeat it sixty million times, I am not sure you will understand it either.
I don't think asking you to think should be a problem, because I believe you know how to think. I also know you got my point the last time. So here is what I will do.
You said...
I do not believe in the devil so do not understand that reference.
I am sure the tribes their have their own philosophy with out me intruding.

Could you take those statements, think about them for a moment - take your time, and see if you can connect it to what I say next.
I do not believe I am an animal, and do not apply the term in the same way you do, or your following.
I do not accept your philosophy, nor the philosophy of your following. You can say I have my own philosophy, and it would be "oh so lovely" , if you stop trying to intrude.
I believe the system that you are happy to be in, is under the rule of the Devil, whom I believe is real, and those who allow themselves to be ruled by the system are being manipulated to follow like zombies every "wind of teaching" promoted by the Devil - including telling you that, "No, you are not special. You are merely an animal. You are an ape. You are a lungfish. You are a mere bacteria."

If you are a happy zombie, that's all well and good with me, all the more zombies for God to round up and slaughter. Good riddance to all the zombies.
I hope that was not so difficult to understand.

Oh, one more thing. If you ever return to my island, to disturb me with your philosophy, we have plenty spears. <Joke>
Seriously though, feel free to follow your doctrines, but please don't try to force what your religious book says, down my throat. Otherwise, I will take that as an invitation to do the same. Deal?

I still do not know any scientific evidence from science ID specialist since all I have heard from them is quoted scientific evidence from scientists of biology, geology, chemistry and physics and change the presentation to meet their agenda. I have never seen any scientific evidence for ID so I you will help me maybe you can provide me with some original scientific research that demonstrates the intelligent designer. I will be happy to learn.

Okay, let me ask this then, because really what I am trying to find out is if you think that ID scientist are presenting a religious argument, or a scientific one.
Are you saying that ID scientist do not do science, do not have labs from which they operate, do not publish peer reviewed material, etc. Do you think they are not real scientists? Are you saying you don't know what their argument for ID is?

 

[nPeace]

So you knew when you said, "There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory, if you are referring to changes on a large scale, that is, but good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science," but you posited it anyway?

Good science does not support ID. That's why ID is not a scientific theory. There is only one scientific theory that adequately explains the biodiversity we see on earth. That's evolution, which contrary to your claim, is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence.

Nobody says you have to accept anything. You're free to believe any old thing you want.
But in a conversation about science and how science categorizes life on earth, you are in fact, both an animal and a human. You're also a mammal.

Good. I am not in a conversation about how scientist categorizes things. If this is an evolution debate, no I do not accept that humans are lungfish, or any other animal. I do not accept that I am an animal. Do you accept that you are a child of the Devil?

 

[nPeace]

But you are still equating atheist with “evolutionist” when you suggest that atheists teach their children evolution in the home.

Someone can grow up being taught about God and then learn about natural processes in science class - and that's usually how it goes, because we all learn science in science classrooms (unless we’re home schooled). There are many people who accept science and also believe in God(s).

What you also seem to be implying is that people who don't believe in God teach evolution to their children as some sort of replacement for God beliefs. As though children growing up in households where their parents don't believe in God are being taught evolution at home. I don't know where you come up with that.

No, I don't. You don't really think that atheists teach evolution to their children in place of God(s), do you?

Can you please show me where I...

suggest that atheists teach their children evolution in the home

I remember saying just this,,,,
Many people being born and given the knowledge that everything came from nothing, will likely believe that.
....They are raised by evolutionist - perhaps even atheist.

I explained what I meant...
Again, it seems you did not understand what I said.
Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.
Do some of these turn to Christianity, or some other religion, and do some reject evolution? Why?
It's not because they were brainwashed to believe in God, from birth.
They weight the knowledge they gained - both the brainwashing from their atheistic upbringing, and what they heard from the religious side. Using their reasoning ability, they reached a conclusion.
Will that continue? Yes.
It seemed to have been blown it out of proportion, but let's forget that, the thread is about water, so I think we have gone way off topic, and it is leading nowhere.
Can we talk about water?.

Most biologists and chemists understand and accept evolution.

From post #602:

Okay. ...and some don't. Post #601

Also, you've failed to address the point about people from other ancient religions having "knowledge" that their religions were true as well. Well, they can't all be true. But they could all be false.

Yes, all can't be true, but I believe one is true.

People teaching people to worship the state and it's leader as a God are pushing a version of religion, they are not pushing atheism.

Atheism is lack of belief in God(s). There are no tenets, no principles, no beliefs. Nothing to be taught.

Are you saying that there are no atheist that push their dogma at their children, or other children, and adults?
That would not be true. I showed a few cases, and if you like, I can get more for you.
'

What they present is the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Can you explain that please?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you explain that please?

Yes. An argument from incredulity basically states that the arguer doesn't believe that a particular thing is true or possible, and so declares it as such, as when a creationist thinks that all of the pretty flowers and animals on earth couldn't possibly exist without an intelligent designer, because he or she simply can't imagine how that could happen, so it didn't.

That's a logical error.