Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

[DogmaHunter]

Sigh. Lets look at the observational evidence. Everyone keeps wanting to ignore the observational evidence of how variation occurs in the species for some reason.


Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Not to mention they ignore their own scientific definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Since it is those locally adapted traits they claim is the cause of the variation - it simply makes them sub-species or different infraspecific taxa in the species - not separate species. So when you ignore how life propagates and variation happens in the species, and ignore your own scientific definitions - you end up incorrectly translating 90% of the fossil record as separate species, instead of the infraspecific taxa that they in reality are.

Evolution is a gradual process.

And species don't jump branches.

It's a waste of time to argue against a theory, if you are going to misrepresent the theory in your argumentation.


FYI: if you're a creationist who fancies the genesis myth with the 2 humans, the magical garden and the talking snake, then how do you explain asians, caucasians, indians, aboriginals, black africans, .. if not through an evolution-like process?

If all humans came from a single couple, then clearly the nonsense you wrote here is indeed nonsense... Then clearly, asians can descend from non-asians.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The great benefit in believing in creation is that you don't have to study all this stuff.

Is this an admission that Creationism is intellectually lazy?

 

[Loudmouth]

When I hear that claim I tend to point out that evolution is actually supported by the opposite; the differences.

They are supported by both, as I am sure you are more than aware. We often don't stress the differences as much as the similarities, but they are of equal importance. Ultimately, the divergence between species is very powerful evidence for evolution.

But whether you look at differences or similarities there is one major important thing creationist ignores or misunderstand; the features which are compared are unique and inherent characteristics. It is very important they are, otherwise the comparsion means nothing.

This is lack of understanding is why creationists try to refute the nested set, and prove "design", with man made things that cannot reproduce themselves, such as bridges, cars and airplanes.

It is rather comical to watch creationists try to fit things like cars and airplanes into a nested hierarchy. It only demonstrates that they still don't understand the evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is rather comical to watch creationists try to fit things like cars and airplanes into a nested hierarchy. It only demonstrates that they still don't understand the evidence.

In many cases, they don't care to understand. That in itself is a problem.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's all imaginary and of almost no value.

Then show us that it is imaginary. Here is a picture of 4 pevlises. The pelvis on the far left is a human pelvis. The pelvis on the far right is a chimp pelvis. The two pelvises in the middle are from two transitional hominids. Now, please tell me how I am imagining the similarity between the human pelvis on the left and the two pelvises in the middle.

So much for knowing the past.

We can't know what organisms looked like in the past by looking at their fossils? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

What was the exact temperature outside your front
door 6 seconds ago? Take as much time as you wish
to predict your answer then test it and see if you were
right. Use the scientific method. Re-check your
method and build up a data base of supporting
experiments. Turn your work-book over to peers
and have them re-check your experiment.

Are you saying that we can't determine what features species had in the past by looking at their fossils?

 

[Loudmouth]

So the scientific method does not work for past events.
With that premise, whatever they say is imaginary and not truthful.

Why Data Scientists Need to be Good Data Storytellers

Hint: Good storytelling is convincing people that your fiction is non-fiction.
Example: The Exorcist - This film was inspired by true events.

Sorry, not a scientific reference.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sigh. Lets look at the observational evidence. Everyone keeps wanting to ignore the observational evidence of how variation occurs in the species for some reason.

Are chimps and humans separate species?

 

[Loudmouth]

In many cases, they don't care to understand. That in itself is a problem.

Exactly. When the evidence is all against you it is better to play ignorant than have to face the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nested hierarchies are, in my opinion, false positives.

Are you saying that God faked evidence for evolution just to fool us?

 

[Loudmouth]

To further evidence just how powerful the evidence is, we can compare the nested sets for physical features and the nested sets for DNA sequence. In this comparison, we are looking at cytochrome c, a protein that resides in mitochondria and has nothing to do with what physical features an organism has. When we compare the two sets, physical characteristics and DNA sequence, for 30 different taxa we get the same exact sets.

So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 1038 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree (see Table 1.3.1; Felsenstein 1982; Li 1997, p. 102). In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439). Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places. This phenomenal corroboration of universal common descent is referred to as the "twin nested hierarchy". This term is something of a misnomer, however, since there are in reality multiple nested hierarchies, independently determined from many sources of data.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence
​

Just stressing this again:

"Speaking quantitatively, independent morphological and molecular measurements such as these have determined the standard phylogenetic tree, as shown in Figure 1, to better than 38 decimal places."

For 30 taxa, there are more than 1 x10^38 possible trees. Evolution predicts just one tree out of all those billions and trillions of possible trees, and it is the EXACT tree that we observe. The chances of evolution being false are 1 in 1x10^38.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sigh. Lets look at the observational evidence. Everyone keeps wanting to ignore the observational evidence of how variation occurs in the species for some reason.


Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Not to mention they ignore their own scientific definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Since it is those locally adapted traits they claim is the cause of the variation - it simply makes them sub-species or different infraspecific taxa in the species - not separate species. So when you ignore how life propagates and variation happens in the species, and ignore your own scientific definitions - you end up incorrectly translating 90% of the fossil record as separate species, instead of the infraspecific taxa that they in reality are.

Yeah, we all read that the first time you posted it, and the second, and the third, and.... Actually, I'm exaggerating, once was enough.

 

[And-U-Say]

If you accept Science AND the Bible then you have your work cut out for you. Lazy people only accept one or the other.

If you accept Astronomy and astrology then you have your work cut out for you. Lazy people only accept one or the other.

See, it is easy to make up stupid stuff.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is this an admission that Creationism is intellectually lazy?

My comment doesn't address Creationism, just belief in creation. But I'm sure that Creationists are not at all lazy in their defense of special creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

My comment doesn't address Creationism, just belief in creation. But I'm sure that Creationists are not at all lazy in their defense of special creation.

They don't even try to come up with an explanation for the observed nested hierarchy. That's pretty lazy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying that God faked evidence for evolution just to fool us?

You already fooled yourselves.

Remember the passages in the Bible that say God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

There are passages that also say Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Thus Pharaoh's heart was already hardened before the Ten Plagues started.

Evidence of it was his attitude toward the Israelites.

You guys are hardening your own hearts.

Evidence of it is ... well ... you know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You already fooled yourselves.

Remember the passages in the Bible that say God hardened Pharaoh's heart?

There are passages that also say Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Thus Pharaoh's heart was already hardened.

You guys are hardening your own hearts.

Are you sure it's not you whose "heart is hardened," as in, you are not open to inquiry?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you sure it's not you whose "heart is hardened," as in, you are not open to inquiry?

And where has your inquiring mind taken you, humanist?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And where has your inquiring mind taken you, humanist?

To at least trying to understand how the diversity of life originated on this planet.

 

[Loudmouth]

You already fooled yourselves.

Then please show how the evidence is inconsistent with evolution.