The Miracle of Water.

[SkepticThinker]

I will if you will.

All parents teach their children to believe what they do because they feel that they have made the right decision about their worldview, so it applies across the whole gamut of belief systems, including atheism. So your first point is invalid.

The school system does not encourage religious education these days (though it used to some decades ago.) Parents also influence their children as they grow, by their words, attitudes and conduct. So until they reach High School their beliefs will continue to reflect their parents' beliefs (or lack of them)

High School then begins in earnest to indoctrinate children with the "science" of evolution with nothing to counter the indoctrination if they receive no alternative education at home. Even those parents who may want to hang onto their religious beliefs will find it difficult to argue with "science". But once you know the truth about their "evidence" the unprovable part of the science looks pretty pathetic.

Sadly, by the time they reach university level, most young adults are trained to believe that only science has an evidence based system of belief and that the religious based ideas are based on myths and fairy tales. They have never been encouraged to explore the options. YEC is not the only alternative.

Most of them are never exposed to the truth.....that the "evidence" they have to substitute for God does not require "proof"...in fact mere mention of the word send them into overdrive. They are handed one belief system to substitute for another. That might be good enough to sway some, but not everyone.


I'm sorry but I find your arguments rather pathetic. Bluff and bluster.....

Yes, it is difficult to argue with observable and demonstrable facts. I'm not sure why anybody would.

Most people have no problem reconciling their God with the facts of reality. It just seems to be a few small religious subsets that have a hard time imagining that their God could be intelligent enough to have designed evolution.

By the way, I was never taught evolution at home. Honestly, I'm not even sure my parents could explain it to me if they tried. The first time I actually remember learning anything about evolution at all was some time halfway through high school. And then not again until I took an animal behaviour class in university. Where is it that you think this evolution indoctrination is taking place? Did you attend public school?

 

[joelr]

You submitted something for rebuttal.....it didn't disappoint.

In all of that .......where is any substantiated evidence? Just more bluster as if that substantiates anything but your stubborn refusal to admit the truth. You have no REAL evidence for anything but adaptation. We have no argument with that.

Unless you have some real evidence for amoebas to dinosaurs that doesn't require belief in an assumption or a leading suggestion, I will ignore your childish diatribes. It's getting old.

Yet evidence from archeology and history all show religions are mythology and you ignore that? Now you want even more evidence for evolution?
You can't get behind evolution but bronze age myths about a god who was clearly stolen from Egyptian myths and needs blood sacrifices to get anything done seems realistic to you?

Even if the universe was created for life, it wasn't created by a Yahweh???




Yahweh[Notes 1] was the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah.[3] His exact origins are disputed, although they reach back to the early Iron Age and even the Late Bronze:[4][5] his name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon,[6] but the earliest plausible mentions of Yahweh are in Egyptian texts that refer to a similar-sounding place name associated with the Shasu nomads of the southern Transjordan.[7]

In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior", who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[8] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,[9] and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[10][11] By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[11]




The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal.[37] In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism.[38] As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל‬) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh


The "evidence" you shout for shows us religious people of today are worshiping a bronze age mythical god. In 6 BCE this group decided this was the "one true god". In the Q'uran Abraham says he was tired of all these solar/moon gods because they were only around during the day/night and that he had a .........."revelation" about the true god?? Really? And you think evolution is sketchy???

 

[Deeje]

The "evidence" you shout for shows us religious people of today are worshiping a bronze age mythical god. In 6 BCE this group decided this was the "one true god". In the Q'uran Abraham says he was tired of all these solar/moon gods because they were only around during the day/night and that he had a .........."revelation" about the true god?? Really? And you think evolution is sketchy???

Hilarious. I believe its all sketchy. I keep hearing this "bronze age" stuff as if that is supposed to cast things in a dark unenlightened time....? What have you got against bronze?

Ancient Egypt was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth in "the bronze age", and the pyramids are still with us.....and so is the Bible. Some things are built to last you know.

If evolution is true, where will that take you? What do you have to look forward to in the future?

If God exists and is going to hold humans to an accounting as he says he will, where will that take you?
Things are not looking too good for you right now.

I think I'll take Abraham's word over yours....and BTW, I don't think he ever said that.

 

[Bear Wild]

Hilarious. I believe its all sketchy. I keep hearing this "bronze age" stuff as if that is supposed to cast things in a dark unenlightened time....? What have you got against bronze?

Ancient Egypt was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth in "the bronze age", and the pyramids are still with us.....and so is the Bible. Some things are built to last you know.

If evolution is true, where will that take you? What do you have to look forward to in the future?

If God exists and is going to hold humans to an accounting as he says he will, where will that take you?
Things are not looking too good for you right now.

I think I'll take Abraham's word over yours....and BTW, I don't think he ever said that.

So you have actually talked to the Abraham or just read what others years later think Abraham said even if is was a mythical character to make a point to the Jewish people about the Jewish law.
If their is a god at all he is not going to look kindly on any of us for what were are doing to gods creation so things are not looking to good for you either.

 

[joelr]

Hilarious. I believe its all sketchy. I keep hearing this "bronze age" stuff as if that is supposed to cast things in a dark unenlightened time....? What have you got against bronze?

It was a rather unenlightened time in the sense that people didn't know about science and believing in supernatural deities was commonplace. We now know these were all myths created because Bronze Age people had no other alternative. People didn't even read. Now we have education and we understand Yawheh and Zeus are no different, that the bible is mythical storytelling as is all religious beliefs.

Ancient Egypt was one of the most advanced civilizations on earth in "the bronze age", and the pyramids are still with us.....and so is the Bible. Some things are built to last you know.

Christianity was 4% of Rome when Constantine decided to use it to help unify Rome after the civil war. The entire Roman armry was Mithrian worshippers.
By 313 AD Christianity was 4%. A small cult.
But because of evangelism and Rome deciding to make it law people had no choice. In 12AD the RCC spread Catholicism with a mighty hand.
That is why it's "still with us". It was forced on Europe.

Now with all of the PhD scholarship about the pagan parallels and many other factors people are rapidly beginning to see religion is just man made myths enforced by ruling powers.

If evolution is true, where will that take you? What do you have to look forward to in the future?

That makes no sense? When I was Christian I just assumed evolution was true. There are so many obvious errors and failed prophecies in the bible that a counting of the age of the planet is surely in error.

The bible gives pi as 3??? Completely wrong. Stars fall from the sky, the Earth sounds like a dome or flat surface, the sun revolves around it, early Earth was covered in water (it wasn't, it took billions of years to accumulate water and even then it never covered the planet. The stars and planets revolve around the Earth. There is a celestial heaven in the upper atmosphere. This is where the holy version of the Earthly temple resides. Jesus is the high priest of the temple.

All of this is obviously wrong yet you thing the bibles vague description of the Earths age is correct?

And why would a mythology have anything to do with my future?
Froto threw the one ring in the fires of Mt Sauron. This does not effect my future in any way. It's storytelling.

What happens in the future is not known by any human.

If God exists and is going to hold humans to an accounting as he says he will, where will that take you?
Things are not looking too good for you right now.

If there is a god of the universe he is not some archaic god who can't get anything done without magic blood sacrifice. Don't kill Issiac, you can kill animals instead. Passover, Yom Kippur, kill, kill, kill, god needs magic sacrificed blood. Then the ultimate sacrifice - Jesus has super magic blood that gives us sin forgiveness forever! Yay, no more annual goat killing.

Your sacrifice cult is ridiculous. The obsession with sin, original sin is the biggest con ever. You're all sinners but luckily we can fix that with lots of dead animals and later a demigod. Judaism is obsessed with sin and that went right into Christianity. If the god of the universe is some sacrifice obsessed maniac then I would gladly steer far away from that creepy situation.
Trying to scare people with your magic blood cult is hilarious.

I think I'll take Abraham's word over yours....and BTW, I don't think he ever said that.

Let's take Abrahams actual words then. I said he didn't like all the solar gods around at the time so he "revelationed" up a Yahweh.



Abraham(as) and Heavenly Signs

The Prophet Abraham(as) grew up in a polytheistic society and his people sought their Creator in the nature around them, but without satisfaction as we read in the Qur’an:

And when the night darkened upon him, he saw a star. He said: ‘This is my Lord!’ But when it set, he said: ‘I like not those that set.’ And when he saw the moon rise with spreading light, he said: ‘This is my Lord.’ But when it set, he said, ‘If my Lord guide me not, I shall surely be of the people who go astray.’ And when he saw the sun rise with spreading light, he said: ‘This is my Lord, this is the greatest.’ But when it set, he said, ‘O my people, surely I am clear of that which you associate with God. I have turned my face toward Him Who created the heavens and the earth, being ever inclined to God, and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’ (Ch.6:Vs.77-80)

These verses illustrate the extent to which society at that time (around 4000 years ago) had fallen into the worship of celestial bodies. The insight that he was given showed his understanding that bodies that set below the horizon could not exert their influence continually over man, whereas the Creator was (and is) omnipresent. The verses show how Abraham(as) used his arguments to show his people the futility of their ancient beliefs as he had been the recipient of direct revelation; it was not the case that Abraham(as) himself had been groping to find his Creator through this process,. This is reinforced in a later verse in the same chapter:






SEE! It's exactly as I said, he didn't like all the solar gods and he had a "revelation" (he made it up) -

"used his arguments to show his people the futility of their ancient beliefs as he had been the recipient of direct revelation;"

So he did say exactly what I said. He didn't like all the solar worship and said "hey guys I have a "revelation" that there is a better god! His name is ......uh...Yahweh!


Now let's see who Yahweh was back then:


Yahweh[Notes 1] was the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah.[3] His exact origins are disputed, although they reach back to the early Iron Age and even the Late Bronze:[4][5] his name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon,[6] but the earliest plausible mentions of Yahweh are in Egyptian texts that refer to a similar-sounding place name associated with the Shasu nomads of the southern Transjordan.[7]

In the oldest biblical literature, Yahweh is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior", who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[8] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,




The Israelites initially worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal.[37] In the period of the Judges and the first half of the monarchy, El and Yahweh became conflated in a process of religious syncretism.[38] As a result, ’el (Hebrew: אל‬) became a generic term meaning "god", as opposed to the name of a worshipped deity, and epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, diminishing the worship of El and strengthening the position of Yahweh.[39] Features of Baal, El and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahweh religion, Asherah possibly becoming embodied in the feminine aspects of the Shekinah or divine presence, and Baal's nature as a storm and weather god becoming assimilated into Yahweh's own identification with the storm.[40] In the next stage the Yahweh religion separated itself from its Canaanite heritage, first by rejecting Baal-worship in the 9th century, then through the 8th to 6th centuries with prophetic condemnation of Baal, the asherim, sun-worship, worship on the "high places", practices pertaining to the dead, and other matters.[41]




so he just picked a run of the mill god and promoted him to "the god". Sketchy. Yahweh wasn't the first either, there were Egyptain solar gods who were being promoted to "god of all gods" first so that wasn't even original. Total Iron age mythology. We know better now.

 

[tas8831]

If evolution is true, where will that take you? What do you have to look forward to in the future?

And there is what it all comes down to - fear.

 

[Deeje]

And there is what it all comes down to - fear.

If I hear a siren and I see smoke, I'm going to assume that there is a fire. (Here in Australia we are experiencing record heatwave conditions at present so it can happen anywhere.) Now, if the smoke is coming from the direction of my house, I am going to assume that my home is being threatened by that fire. If I hear on my radio or by SMS alert that the houses in my street are all under evacuation and I won't be permitted to return because it could well cost me my life......am I going to experience fear? I don't know if my family is safe....of course I am going to be fearful.

If my home is not insured and my family or even my beloved pets are in harm's way....am I going to feel fear because I can't get in there to help them to get to safety? All my important documents and irreplaceable photographs are in my house. Cell phone service is down and I don't know where my family is. Am I fearful? You bet I am.

OK, now tell me.....if my home is fully insured, my family and my pets are safe and all my neighbors have been safely evacuated and being cared for.....will I still be in fear? What can be lost in that fire that cannot be replaced? Even my treasured photographs are stored in the Cloud. All my important documents are in safe keeping at my lawyer's office, so anything lost in the fire will only be certified copies. Am I fearful now....or relieved that I was prepared?

The fire engulfs the whole neighborhood and I hear that some of my neighbors were not insured because they never thought a wildfire would ever reach them in suburbia.....and they lost everything.
Some stayed to fight the fire and were killed trying to outrun the flames when they tried to escape, but too late.

Humans are known for taking a gamble because things could go either way in any given scenario....no one really knows how it will turn out. But gambling with your life is not the same as gambling with your possessions....it means that there is a lot to lose.

From my perspective, I heard the siren.....I see the smoke getting thicker, and I got the message telling me to evacuate from the danger area. My family are with me and we have moved to a safe location. But I am concerned about my neighbors because they decided to stay and defend their homes but all they have is a small watering can and a kid's water pistol. I can't force people to leave what they love. All I can do is warn them that the fire may well take their lives along with their possessions, especially since their fire fighting gear is rather pathetic....but, what they do is then up to them.

But to add to the dilemma, these neighbors have convinced others that they can stay and fight the fire too....they can even borrow the watering can and the water pistol! Would I be wrong if I tried to tell those other neighbors that this guy is having himself on, and that nothing in their house is worth losing their life for especially when there is nothing substantial enough to defeat the flames?

This is how I see the situation of those who have convinced themselves that there is no Creator....based on what? Someone's educated guesswork, assumptions, suggestions and inferred scenarios with nothing of substance to back up their claims.

You apparently got your misinformation about God from Christendom, not Christianity. So what you rejected was not what Christ taught, but what the church taught. Most of those in Christendom don't hear the siren, don't see the smoke, and wonder what they are choking on. Others are looking at them struggling to breathe, and shaking their heads because they are breathing with no difficulty at all. What fire? What smoke?

If you are confident in your choices, then good for you.....but it really doesn't matter what we think, what we believe, or who we believe. This planet belongs to its Maker and the terms of our tenancy have been broken. The eviction notice has been served and the enforcers will carry out their instructions, whether anyone believes it or not.....so all the best with your decision. I have a feeling that your confidence may well be shaken at some time in the future....but what do I know....? I am just a dumb, uneducated Bible believer who can't even prove that their Creator exists.....Right? But you guys can't prove that evolution ever happened either. Is that "stalemate" or "checkmate"? Time will tell.

 

[tas8831]

And there is one of the usual antics - a wall of text to hide the fact that she cannot produce a viable counter.

If I hear a siren and I see smoke, I'm going to assume that there is a fire.

Genius.
Now show me the similar evidence for the existence of Yahweh and the bible miracles.

snip obfuscation

You apparently got your misinformation about God from Christendom, not Christianity.

No, I got the information from your post. You and your ilk are AFRAID that this is all there is, so you cling desperately to your tall tales and plagiarized numerologist myths from the ancient middle east to give yourselves comfort.

So what you rejected was not what Christ taught, but what the church taught.

No, I rejected the nonsense in the bible - I saw it for what it was, and I saw that actual evidence not only rarely if ever supported the bible stories (I would HOPE that at least some of the people and places and events mentioned in the bible were real, lest the ENTIRE thing be hoaxy nonsense!), but that in most cases, actual evidence contradicts them.

If you are confident in your choices, then good for you.....but it really doesn't matter what we think, what we believe, or who we believe.

Begging the question begins in ... 3... 2..1

This planet belongs to its Maker...
I have a feeling that your confidence may well be shaken at some time in the future.

Oooooh scary!

I have a feeling that at some point in the future, as your life slips away, you will realize that you've lived a lie.
And then... nothing.

...but what do I know....? I am just a dumb, uneducated Bible believer who can't even prove that their Creator exists.....Right?

Not only that, but you exude the Dunning-Kruger effect like few I have encountered, all the while pretending to possess knowledge that you unwittingly admit you do not. Not only do you falsely present yourself to us, you apparently do it to yourself as well. As I suppose you must.
\

But you guys can't prove that evolution ever happened either. Is that "stalemate" or "checkmate"?

We can prove nothing, as that is not how science works. But at least we have lots of actual evidence (NOT the special pleading or double standards that you rely on), all you have is assertions, dopey threats of damnation, and pretend knowledge that you routinely make a fool of yourself over.

Neither stalemate nor checkmate - you folks have only a few pawns on the board and keep telling yourself that your King will save the day...

 

[ecco]

So what you rejected was not what Christ taught

How do you know what Christ taught? There are no eyewitness accounts of anything he ever said.

 

[Deeje]

How do you know what Christ taught? There are no eyewitness accounts of anything he ever said.

It's called faith, which is a quality you either have or you don't, based on many factors, some of which are out of our control and some of which are all our own doing. We decide who we are, and what we want to believe.
This faith, when genuine, is then rewarded with a relationship with the Creator. If you have never had one, then there is no point trying to explain it.

I have not one single shred of doubt about the existence of our Intelligent Designer, because I see his creative genius and acknowledge it. I also understand the role of the one he sent into the world to rescue it from those who either refuse to acknowledge his sovereignty, or who claim to know him, but ignore his laws for their own self-interest.

The gospel accounts of both Matthew and John were eyewitness testimony. Need more? I don't.
Your doubts are your own problem. They mean nothing to me.

 

[Deeje]

We can prove nothing, as that is not how science works. But at least we have lots of actual evidence (NOT the special pleading or double standards that you rely on), all you have is assertions, dopey threats of damnation, and pretend knowledge that you routinely make a fool of yourself over.

Now here we have the typical response of admitting that there is no actual "proof" for anything science asserts, because "that's not how science works"....do you see how ridiculous that statement is when one "belief" system is actually fighting with another?

It's also admitting that the whole theory rests on faith in what science assumes is true, but cannot substantiate unless "belief" is exercised in what science assumes is correct. Hello....isn't that what you accuse us Bible believers of doing. Pot meet kettle.

Your "evidence" is based on suggestions about how the mechanics of life apply within your own preferred (unproven and unprovable) theory. You are welcome to them. I will stick to my own logic that dictates that something as complex as life itself in its many manifestations is the product of intelligence.....that is a "blind Freddy" conclusion that certainly seems to me more intelligent that saying humans are related to bananas. Tell us how single called organisms morphed themselves into dinosaurs.....show us in real terms how that is even possible.

Neither stalemate nor checkmate - you folks have only a few pawns on the board and keep telling yourself that your King will save the day...

Our King will prove himself....what will you do then? All the pawns on the losing side are taken off the board. I guess you don't care.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Now here we have the typical response of admitting that there is no actual "proof" for anything science asserts, because "that's not how science works"....do you see how ridiculous that statement is when one "belief" system is actually fighting with another?

It's also admitting that the whole theory rests on faith in what science assumes is true, but cannot substantiate unless "belief" is exercised in what science assumes is correct. Hello....isn't that what you accuse us Bible believers of doing. Pot meet kettle.

Your "evidence" is based on suggestions about how the mechanics of life apply within your own preferred (unproven and unprovable) theory. You are welcome to them. I will stick to my own logic that dictates that something as complex as life itself in its many manifestations is the product of intelligence.....that is a "blind Freddy" conclusion that certainly seems to me more intelligent that saying humans are related to bananas. Tell us how single called organisms morphed themselves into dinosaurs.....show us in real terms how that is even possible.

Oh, complex things are the product of intelligence, you say? Well then that begs the question ... who created the Creator?



And once again, the whole theory of evolution rests on evidence - the opposite of faith.

Our King will prove himself....what will you do then? All the pawns on the losing side are taken off the board. I guess you don't care.

Yeah, yeah ... more "believe what I say or else you'll be sorry" nonsense. A sure sign of a failed argument.

 

[tas8831]

Hilarious. I believe its all sketchy.

You "believe" that because, by your own admission, you do not understand the evidence above the level of a child.

 

[tas8831]

Now here we have the typical response of admitting that there is no actual "proof" for anything science asserts, because "that's not how science works"....do you see how ridiculous that statement is when one "belief" system is actually fighting with another?

Pretty bold assertion from someone that needs adult-level science dumbed-down to a child's level to be able to grasp it!

But do tell us all about your PROOF for Yahweh having children's heads dashed on rocks for the horrible crime of being born to parents that did not believe in him.

What you continually fail to grasp is that it is lay folk - like you - that talk about "proof" while dismissing the evidence because you do not understand the material!
Hilarious.

It's also admitting that the whole theory rests on faith in what science assumes is true, but cannot substantiate unless "belief" is exercised in what science assumes is correct. Hello....isn't that what you accuse us Bible believers of doing. Pot meet kettle.

So naive.

How on earth is it "faith" when I notice that yet again you just ignore the EVIDENCE we rely on?

WHERE is YOUR evidence for the Hebrew tribal deity?

ALL you have is "faith" in ancient middle eastern numerology myths. No evidence at all.

Pot meet kettle? More like Here is the pot... where is the kettle?

Your "evidence" is based on suggestions about how the mechanics of life apply within your own preferred (unproven and unprovable) theory.

Lie based on ignorance.

You are welcome to them. I will stick to my own logic that dictates that something as complex as life itself in its many manifestations is the product of intelligence..

IOW, you appeal to your own ignorance and awe.

How quaint.

Tell us how single called organisms morphed themselves into dinosaurs.

Tell us how it is that a grown woman that employs such naive, shallow and dishonest misrepresentations of things she cannot understand (or rejects due to her religious beliefs) should be taken seriously in her 'debates' on those same subjects?

"Morphed" into dinosaurs? That is the sort of question I expect from a 5th grader, not an adult that implies having great knowledge of the material.

Dumbed down answer - just for you:

Single celled organisms experience mutations in the DNA (DNA is special science stuff) that allowed them to "morph" into multicellular (that is, many celled) organisms. Those organisms accumulated mutations that eventually produced organisms with brains and legs, some of which became dinosaurs.

....show us in real terms how that is even possible.

See above.

Now show us in real terms how it is even possible that one particular tribal deity from the ancient middle east just happened to be the one TRUE God, and how this God created light without stars and a fully formed adult human male from dust.

i can wait.

Our King will prove himself....what will you do then?

Your King is a figment of you imagination - what will you do when you reach your death bed and this phony King never shows up?

All the pawns on the losing side are taken off the board. I guess you don't care.

I guess you think that a ooooo scary! child-like analogy to your ancient middle eastern tall tales will have some sort of real or at least rhetorical effect on an educated adult, but sorry - it doesn't. Just makes me shake my head at your arrogance.

Oh - almost forgot - so weird how despite lying continually about there being no evidence for evolution - which I shall now refer to as PROOF since such assertive language seems to impress religionists - that you ignore it or try (and fail) to dismiss it when it is presented.


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...

 

[tas8831]

Who remembers when deeje wrote:

"They [bacteria] adapted to antibiotics by making themselves immune to them."

I asked to explain what that means and, of course, she ignore the request. So typical of these folks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now here we have the typical response of admitting that there is no actual "proof" for anything science asserts, because "that's not how science works"....do you see how ridiculous that statement is when one "belief" system is actually fighting with another?

It's also admitting that the whole theory rests on faith in what science assumes is true, but cannot substantiate unless "belief" is exercised in what science assumes is correct. Hello....isn't that what you accuse us Bible believers of doing. Pot meet kettle.

See? Told ya' fundamentalists tend towards black/white thinking, and here Deeje illustrates my point perfectly. You either absolutely prove something 100% or it's just blind faith.

Fascinating.

 

[ecco]

It's called faith, which is a quality you either have or you don't, based on many factors, some of which are out of our control and some of which are all our own doing. We decide who we are, and what we want to believe.

More accurately, your faith is blind faith. I have faith in many things. I have faith that geologists can use their education and science to determine how old rocks are. I have faith that biologists can use their education and science to determine the origins of humans.

Reasoning is only out of control for those who have been indoctrinated into believing based on blind faith.

This faith, when genuine, is then rewarded with a relationship with the Creator. If you have never had one, then there is no point trying to explain it.

I guess that at one time my faith led me to believe Santa Clause was real. I've long since outgrown childish fantasies.

I have not one single shred of doubt about the existence of our Intelligent Designer, because I see his creative genius and acknowledge it.

I see an awesome sunset and thank nature. You see an awesome sunset and thank a magical man in the sky.

I also understand the role of the one he sent into the world to rescue it from those who either refuse to acknowledge his sovereignty, or who claim to know him, but ignore his laws for their own self-interest.

How's that rescue working out?

The gospel accounts of both Matthew and John were eyewitness testimony.

You believe that the gospel accounts of both Matthew and John were eyewitness testimony for the same reasons you believe God created man. You blindly accept the teachings of your cult. You disregard the years of accumulated knowledge of scientists in multiple disciplines and you disregard the consensus findings of Biblical Scholars stating that "Matthew" and "John" were not, could not have been eyewitnesses.

 

[tas8831]

You "believe" that because, by your own admission, you do not understand the evidence above the level of a child.

Cute that deeje thinks this is funny. Nervous laughter, I surmise.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Now here we have the typical response of admitting that there is no actual "proof" for anything science asserts, because "that's not how science works"....do you see how ridiculous that statement is when one "belief" system is actually fighting with another?

It's also admitting that the whole theory rests on faith in what science assumes is true, but cannot substantiate unless "belief" is exercised in what science assumes is correct. Hello....isn't that what you accuse us Bible believers of doing. Pot meet kettle.

Your "evidence" is based on suggestions about how the mechanics of life apply within your own preferred (unproven and unprovable) theory. You are welcome to them. I will stick to my own logic that dictates that something as complex as life itself in its many manifestations is the product of intelligence.....that is a "blind Freddy" conclusion that certainly seems to me more intelligent that saying humans are related to bananas. Tell us how single called organisms morphed themselves into dinosaurs.....show us in real terms how that is even possible.



Our King will prove himself....what will you do then? All the pawns on the losing side are taken off the board. I guess you don't care.

More rhetorical smoke and mirrors. More semantic distractions. More misdirections and obfuscations. More redefining of terms to fill the void left by the total lack of objective evidence. Do you really believe that all scientific claims are based on faith and belief, like religious claims? Are you equating knowledge with belief? Do you think that all scientific Theories are NOT based on the verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence that is available? Surely you would agree that the cumulative knowledge of sciences is rooted in its simplicity and its elegance. Do you really think that scientific Theories are based on unsubstantiated assumptions, personal beliefs and subjective experiences? If you do, then you clearly have no idea of the relevancy of science is.

Can you imagine what would happen if you tried to give an illiterate peasants farmer living during the Dark Ages, a scientific explanation of what lightning is, and why it strikes? Or, why the seasons or so different? It would be the same as trying to tell a creationist that we can actually measure the time it takes for light to reach earth from distant stars and galaxies, which makes it impossible for the Universe to be 6 - 10,000 years old. Or, trying to tell a flat-earther to look at the shadow of the earth during a lunar eclipse, or Google the photos from the orbiting space station, all showing that the earth is not flat. People emboldened by their own denial of truth, must turn to faith as their new truth. Religion has always been the science It is much easier to accept that "God did it all", than it is to understand the underlying science behind HOW He did it. Evidence and faith are inversely proportional to each other. The more you have of one, the less you need of the other. Skeptics, Scientists, Atheists, etc., have more than enough evidence to justify their lack of superstitious faith or belief. Believers need to create their own reality and truisms, to accommodate for their total lack of objective evidence.

Life is not complex in the eyes of Nature. In fact, life was the only inevitable outcome of all possible natural outcomes(Entropy). What will happen after life is totally based on faith, not facts. Since I accept death as the inevitable outcome of life, Pascal's Wager will always be just another con to control the minds of those that actually fear death. I sincerely hope that you are correct. In that some kind of conscious awareness will continue, even after death. Whether it is bathing in the fires of eternal damnation, or the peace and harmony offered by some exalted heavenly place, at least you'd be still self-aware and not dead. This seems to me a win-win compared to the alternative.

 

[Deeje]

Cute that deeje thinks this is funny. Nervous laughter, I surmise.

I think there will be lots of nervous laughter in the time to come, so not one bit nervous I'm sorry....What have I got to lose compared with what you guys have to lose? Seriously? God's existence is not dependent upon the "beliefs" of those who choose evolution. You really think it makes him go away?

Let's wait and see....shall we?