What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, what can I say; I made my best effort in studying these topics objectively,

From cdesign proponentsists propaganda sources.
No scientific source is going to be mentioning fallacious bullocks like "irreducible complexity", except as an example of dishonest religious pseudo-science

 

[chinu]

What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?​

My own nature which keep on changing

 

[leroy]

Yes we can tell that the mutations are the same for great apes. That is the point that you refuse to understand. And we know that the mutations are not the same even in bats alone.

In humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans the gene is broken at an identical spot. The article that you misunderstood does not say that the mutations are exactly the same and in fact strongly implies the opposite.


We are now officially in "Been there, done that, bought the t shirt" territory.

you are wrong and you know it

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are wrong and you know it

No, you simply have no understanding at all of genetics or anything else needed to understand that.

Listen very carefully. If what you proposed the article was about was true it would show that evolution as we know it was false. The authors would understand that better than you or I. Yet there is no mention of that. Instead they only use the term "convergent evolution". Not only that, but the quote form @Pogo showed that not only is the evolution between bats and whales to be convergent (which means not exactly the same on the genetic level) it even showed that there was convergent evolution in bats.

The only way to tell that there was convergent evolution in bats and that it evolved at least twice independently is to have different mutations within the gene being discussed. Once again genes are BIG. If you are a follower of Trump the are the BIGGEST.

Gene length and expression level shape genomic novelties - PMC

Gene duplication and alternative splicing are important mechanisms in the production of genomic novelties. Previous work has shown that a gene’s family size and the number of splice variants it produces are inversely related, although the underlying ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"The lengths of the human protein-coding genes are widely distributed (Fig. 1A) and range from a few hundred bases up to a few million: The keratin associated protein 12-4 gene (KRTAP12-4) is 447 nucleotides long, whereas the CNTNAP2 gene has 2,304,637 nucleotides. The extraordinary length of some genes is enabled by the presence of introns, which, as a substrate for insertion of transposable elements, provides a mechanism for the generation of transcriptional diversity through alternative combinations of exons. "

<bolding mine>

Please note the article is about human genes vs E. coli genes. Bats and whales are mammals so should have very similar gene lengths. The shortest genes just have the information on how to make keratin, the much more complex genes needed for echolocation would be on the upper range. If you note those have quite a few introns in them so the odds of an identical gene makes the same changes almost mathematically impossible. In other words, if that happened they would have noticed. You seem to think that only you and the frauds at AiG noticed this fact.

Tell me, what is more reasonable. That the experts in the field missed the biggest find ever (even though their article says that there are differences even in bats) or that the frauds at AiG misinterpreted the article and you swallowed those lies whole? I am going with the latter until you can show that your distorted interpretation is correct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I reject the idea that complex organs and systems evolved from simpler organs as a result of random variation and natural selection, because there seem to be insuperable obstacles, some of these obstacles are.
1 discordances in the tree of life
2 genetic entropy (random mutations on average deteriorate the genome)
3 ireducuble complexity (many things have to evolve at the same time in order to get a benefit)
4 Haldane's dilemma (there is not enough time to account for the differences between say humans and chimps)

That's an incredulity fallacy - something is untrue to you because you can't understand how it could be true. Almost all experts in the field disagree with you. They CAN see how the theory is correct. It's not debated any more.

As a theist (Christian) I see no important implications, whether if evolution is true or not, doesn’t refute nor supports the claim that Jesus resurrected ………….. so any theological implication would be secondary in my opinion

Many of your fellow Christians reject the theory because it contradicts scripture. I'm unaware of any non-Abrahamic theist that has a problem with the theory.

The connection to Jesus is that he was allegedly sent by a deity that is said to have created the kinds from nothing and is later said to have resurrected Jesus from the dead. We know that the genesis creation story is false, so we are justified in rejecting the entire book as a source of history, fact, knowledge, moral instruction, and life advice.

How could it be that dolphins and bats have the same variations in the same genes ?

How about getting yourself a university education in evolution? That's the proper way to tackle a comprehensive topic. You need to learn the basics and build from there.

Barring that, get a textbook on evolution:

Then there are the books written for the interested lay public:

And if you don't want to invest that much time, there are self-teaching sites on the Internet. Here's an 18 hour course of instruction: Evolution Today

Of course, the less effort you put into this, the less you'll learn. The way you're going about it won't yield much knowledge.

My medical education was systematic. The first year was called normal man, which described the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of a healthy person - how the kidneys filter the blood, histology (such as normal liver architecture), what the Krebs cycle is, etc.

Second year was abnormal man - disease states, medical microbiology, pathology, pharmacology, etc. This built on the understanding of normal man.

Third year was the clinics, where we did rotations in pediatrics, surgery, internal medicine, psychiatry and family practice. Here, we saw patients for the first time as well as more experienced doctors treating them.

Fourth year were electives, which for me included the subspecialties in internal medicine, the specialty I decided was my future: gastroenterology, cardiology, pulmonology, endocrinology, nephrology, infectious diseases, and hematology.

Then I graduated and went on to an internship followed by two years of residency in internal medicine, where we began writing orders on medical charts that had to be signed off on by more senior physicians until we were independent and able to do the same for younger docs.

Imagine if I had tried to learn that here on RF asking physicians assorted unrelated questions. It's not the way to learn any detailed topic comprehensively.

 

[leroy]

No, you simply have no understanding at all of genetics or anything else needed to understand that.

Listen very carefully. If what you proposed the article was about was true it would show that evolution as we know it was false. The authors would understand that better than you or I. Yet there is no mention of that. Instead they only use the term "convergent evolution". Not only that, but the quote form @Pogo showed that not only is the evolution between bats and whales to be convergent (which means not exactly the same on the genetic level) it even showed that there was convergent evolution in bats.

The only way to tell that there was convergent evolution in bats and that it evolved at least twice independently is to have different mutations within the gene being discussed. Once again genes are BIG. If you are a follower of Trump the are the BIGGEST.

Gene length and expression level shape genomic novelties - PMC

Gene duplication and alternative splicing are important mechanisms in the production of genomic novelties. Previous work has shown that a gene’s family size and the number of splice variants it produces are inversely related, although the underlying ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"The lengths of the human protein-coding genes are widely distributed (Fig. 1A) and range from a few hundred bases up to a few million: The keratin associated protein 12-4 gene (KRTAP12-4) is 447 nucleotides long, whereas the CNTNAP2 gene has 2,304,637 nucleotides. The extraordinary length of some genes is enabled by the presence of introns, which, as a substrate for insertion of transposable elements, provides a mechanism for the generation of transcriptional diversity through alternative combinations of exons. "

<bolding mine>

Please note the article is about human genes vs E. coli genes. Bats and whales are mammals so should have very similar gene lengths. The shortest genes just have the information on how to make keratin, the much more complex genes needed for echolocation would be on the upper range. If you note those have quite a few introns in them so the odds of an identical gene makes the same changes almost mathematically impossible. In other words, if that happened they would have noticed. You seem to think that only you and the frauds at AiG noticed this fact.

Tell me, what is more reasonable. That the experts in the field missed the biggest find ever (even though their article says that there are differences even in bats) or that the frauds at AiG misinterpreted the article and you swallowed those lies whole? I am going with the latter until you can show that your distorted interpretation is correct.

You can read it by yourself, the articles that have been quoted in this thread clearly and unambiguously talk about the same substitution in the same genes in the same loci

the authors even explain why is this awsome and extraordinary, which wouldn be the case, if this where analogous to guinea pigs and vitamine c.

Listen very carefully. If what you proposed the article was about was true it would show that evolution as we know it was false. The authors would understand that better than you or I. Yet there is no mention of that.

Not true, this would only put in to question ‘’darwinism’’ (random mutations + ns) which is not a big of a deal, most scientists are abandoning darwinism anyway, if you are open to the possibility that mutations are not necessarily random, then you can have these type of discordances. ....(and universal common ancestry would still be true)

Not only that, but the quote form @Pogo showed that not only is the evolution between bats and whales to be convergent (which means not exactly the same on the genetic level) it even showed that there was convergent evolution in bats.

I know that supporting your assertions is not your strength , but i will ask anyway………where did you get the idea that convergent means ´not the same´

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can read it by yourself, the articles that have been quoted in this thread clearly and unambiguously talk about the same substitution in the same genes in the same loci

Where? You need it to be the same exact loci. Now near. Tell me, if there is not a difference how did they tell that bats evolved it twice?

the authors even explain why is this awsome and extraordinary, which wouldn be the case, if this where analogous to guinea pigs and vitamine c.

Where did they do that? Citation needed.

Not true, this would only put in to question ‘’darwinism’’ (random mutations + ns) which is not a big of a deal, most scientists are abandoning darwinism anyway, if you are open to the possibility that mutations are not necessarily random, then you can have these type of discordances. ....(and universal common ancestry would still be true)

You are doubly wrong. You constantly misinterpret the work of others. Some areas are more prone to mutations than but there is no purpose shown. Please try to find a source that does not refine the current model. By the way "Darwinism" is an extremely out of date term since Darwin knew nothing of genetics.

I know that supporting your assertions is not your strength , but i will ask anyway………where did you get the idea that convergent means ´not the same´

When you make false claims about others you lose the right to ask any questions. Apologize and ask again. Or just confirm the fact that you ignore the facts that you do not like.

 

[Pogo]

Some information about a cartoon.

Pinky and The Brain are genetically enhanced laboratory mice who reside in a cage in the Acme Labs research facility. The Brain is highly intelligent, self-centered and scheming, while Pinky is good-natured but feeble-minded. In each episode, The Brain devises a new plan to take over the world which ultimately ends in failure; usually due to the impossibility of The Brain's plan, The Brain's own overconfidence, Pinky's bumbling, an oversight on The Brain's part, circumstances beyond their control, or a combination thereof. In common with many other Animaniacs shorts, many episodes are in some way a parody of something else, usually a film or novel.

Origin of Leeroy with two e's

 

[leroy]

Where did they do that? Citation needed.

..
Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level6,7,8,9. Where homoplasious substitutions do occur these have long been considered the result of neutral processes. However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution........convergence in nearly 200 loci

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals - Nature

By analysing genomic sequences in echolocating mammals it is shown that convergence is not a rare process restricted to a handful of loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus; analyses involved...

www.nature.com

defintion of Homoplasious substitutions )(from chat gpt)
Homoplasious substitutions:, also known as convergent or parallel substitutions, are genetic changes that occur independently in different evolutionary lineages but result in the same nucleotide or amino acid sequence. In other words, homoplasious substitutions involve the occurrence of identical mutations in unrelated organisms, leading to convergent evolution at the molecular level.

When you make false claims about others you lose the right to ask any questions. Apologize and ask again. Or just confirm the fact that you ignore the facts that you do not like.

Yea yea, I made a false claim about you, and you had 2 options.

1 support your claim, and show that i was wrongly accusing you

Or

2 don't support your claim, because for some reason you think that this is a punishment


and you picked number 2

 

[leroy]

Where did they do that? Citation needed.

..
Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level6,7,8,9. Where homoplasious substitutions do occur these have long been considered the result of neutral processes. However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution........convergence in nearly 200 loci

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals - Nature

By analysing genomic sequences in echolocating mammals it is shown that convergence is not a rare process restricted to a handful of loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus; analyses involved...

www.nature.com

defintion of Homoplasious substitutions )(from chat gpt)
Homoplasious substitutions:, also known as convergent or parallel substitutions, are genetic changes that occur independently in different evolutionary lineages but result in the same nucleotide or amino acid sequence. In other words, homoplasious substitutions involve the occurrence of identical mutations in unrelated organisms, leading to convergent evolution at the molecular level.

When you make false claims about others you lose the right to ask any questions. Apologize and ask again. Or just confirm the fact that you ignore the facts that you do not like.

Yea yea, I made a false claim about you, and you had 2 options.

1 support your claim, and show that i was wrongly accusing you

Or

2 don't support your claim, because for some reason you think that this is a punishment


and you picked number 2

 

[Subduction Zone]

..
Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level6,7,8,9. Where homoplasious substitutions do occur these have long been considered the result of neutral processes. However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution........convergence in nearly 200 loci

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals - Nature

By analysing genomic sequences in echolocating mammals it is shown that convergence is not a rare process restricted to a handful of loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus; analyses involved...

www.nature.com

defintion of Homoplasious substitutions )(from chat gpt)
Homoplasious substitutions:, also known as convergent or parallel substitutions, are genetic changes that occur independently in different evolutionary lineages but result in the same nucleotide or amino acid sequence. In other words, homoplasious substitutions involve the occurrence of identical mutations in unrelated organisms, leading to convergent evolution at the molecular level.



Yea yea, I made a false claim about you, and you had 2 options.

1 support your claim, and show that i was wrongly accusing you

Or

2 don't support your claim, because for some reason you think that this is a punishment


and you picked number 2

No you were acting poorly and making false claims that you could not support because you were wrong. You keep quoting articles that you do not understand that do not support you. You could have apologized and ask politely, but because you are mad for being shown to be wrong you double down on your false accusations.

 

[leroy]

No you were acting poorly and making false claims that you could not support because you were wrong. You keep quoting articles that you do not understand that do not support you. You could have apologized and ask politely, but because you are mad for being shown to be wrong you double down on your false accusations.

Basically I am wrong because you say so

 

[Comradio251]

Of course this question is addressed both to theists and to atheists. Both to those who believe in evolution and those who believe it's untrue.
Explain why you, through your intelligence, reason and mind developped the awareness and the conviction that Evolution is the historical truth.

If you are a theist, please explain the theological implications, as well.

I will underline that we are not talking about Intelligence Design, here: we are talking about Darwinian evolution based upon the Darwinian principles like natural selection, etc..etc...
Thank you for participating-

Nothing. But I'm sure people here believe it because their middle school teachers kept passing it on as fact to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basically I am wrong because you say so

No, as usual you are wrong because multiple people showed you how you are wrong. They explained to you how you are wrong. You as usual are simply in denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing. But I'm sure people here believe it because their middle school teachers kept passing it on as fact to them.

That could be. A lot of people avoid getting a scientific education. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact, but it is never wise to accept facts just a because a middle school teacher says so. It is better to continue one's education so that one can know how it has been shown to be a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Basically I am wrong because you say so

No. Rather: "you are wrong, as they have shown so"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing. But I'm sure people here believe it because their middle school teachers kept passing it on as fact to them.

Teachers who do that are terrible teachers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That could be. A lot of people avoid getting a scientific education. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact, but it is never wise to accept facts just a because a middle school teacher says so. It is better to continue one's education so that one can know how it has been shown to be a fact.

And a school teacher shouldn't demand his students to "just believe him" either.
A school teacher should properly explain things, giving the students actual reasons to accept the material instead of just expecting them to accept it based on some fallacious argument from authority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a school teacher shouldn't demand his students to "just believe him" either.
A school teacher should properly explain things, giving the students actual reasons to accept the material instead of just expecting them to accept it based on some fallacious argument from authority.

Yes, part of being a good school teacher of the sciences is to teach how we know this. That is the point of even the simplest of lab classes.

 

[Eli G]

Saying "evolution is a fact" is indoctrination per se.