The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Kenny'sID]

Bahahahahahah! This guy is the Flame Warrior Ennui incarnate.
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/ennui.htm
Ennui only rouses himself from his torpor to cajole other Warriors to be more interesting - without, of course, ever contributing anything of interest himself. Ennui has limited weaponry at his disposal, but his majestic affectation of boredom provides an effective defense to attacks. When pressed in battle he will announce his intention of moving on to a more stimulating forum, but instead he will generally lurk quietly until the threat passes.
Bahahahah!

Nope, that doesn't draw most away from the issue at hand and cover up the fact you are wrong either...try again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ok, so we have the grandfather (who has his ancestral research confirmed through DNA testing through his paternal line: father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc.) who is related to a king in the early 17th century.

Now, one of the other members of that 10 person sample claims that he has written documentation that he is related to the king's wife through his maternal line: mother, grandmother, etc. This can also be confirmed through DNA.

So, if relationship tests are simply a matter of DNA similarity, as you suggest, then we should be able to determine that the second claimant is also related to the king, correct? Since the grandfather who has established ancestral relationship to the king, and the second claimant who has established relationship with the king's wife should have approximately equal similarity to the couple. In other words, if the two men are, in fact, products of the king and his wife's offspring, then they should both share approximately the same percentage of DNA with both the king and his wife. If DNA comparisons are simply about the similarity to one another, we should be able to match those percentages, and determine both our subjects are related to the king/wife couple.

Do you disagree with any of this?

I hope I will hear back for you on the percentages I asked about but for now, at least for the sake of argument, you deserve benefit of the doubt and I'll carry on... unfortunately that's not going to make much difference. But first, from the bolded above, I'm not sure I suggested that at all? So just keep in mind there is that and the percentages pending as a possible problem.

Secondly, no, I don't disagree, I'm already convinced we are all related and from a single two common ancestors, or even a single one if you want to go that far. So none of that, viable or not, is necessary but recognized as possibility nonetheless.

 

[46AND2]

I hope I will hear back for you on the percentages I asked about but for now, at least for the sake of argument, you deserve benefit of the doubt and I'll carry on... unfortunately that's not going to make much difference. But first, from the bolded above, I'm not sure I suggested that at all? So just keep in mind there is that and the percentages pending as a possible problem.

Secondly, no, I don't disagree, I'm already convinced we are all related and from a single two common ancestors, or even a single one if you want to go that far. So none of that, viable or not, is necessary but recognized as possibility nonetheless.

Sorry, haven't had time to look it up, yet; been busy lately. I'll be able to spend some time on it this weekend.

 

[bhsmte]

More drivel to cover up the drivel. Why don't you instead offer some viable argument?

Wish I could find some entertainment value in this as well but after awhile, it just becomes so ho hum, it's almost painful, even a little sad to watch.

I find great entertainment value in observing human behavior.

 

[USincognito]

Nope, that doesn't draw most away from the issue at hand

Yeah, the issue at hand. The evidences for evolution you still, after nearly 700 posts, have yet to address.

and cover up the fact you are wrong either...try again.

You're a riot. I post in message #676 in which I request three times for you to actually address the content of the OP and explain to you what a syllogism is. How do you respond? By not addressing the content of OP, and instead post a dictionary definition of premise where the third definition uses the word assumed while ignoring the first definition which is exactly how I used the word.

1.
Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.​

Of course this is yet another example of you engaging in meta debate over semantics rather than simply addressing the evidence for evolution. It's clear, at this point, that you simply cannot.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah, the issue at hand. The evidences for evolution you still, after nearly 700 posts, have yet to address.



You're a riot. I post in message #676 in which I request three times for you to actually address the content of the OP and explain to you what a syllogism is. How do you respond? By not addressing the content of OP, and instead post a dictionary definition of premise where the third definition uses the word assumed while ignoring the first definition which is exactly how I used the word.

1.
Also, premiss. Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.​

Of course this is yet another example of you engaging in meta debate over semantics rather than simply addressing the evidence for evolution. It's clear, at this point, that you simply cannot.

USingognito, you badgered me into addressing your op in spite of my general comments it was based on assumptions, and I did that in what is now post 671 or the post that starts with the following comment:

Dishonest about what?

I see no reason to go further into it, because it proves out to be nonsense from the start, and though I'll wast no further time with is on my own, you may still bring any point from it out here to discuss as I've been asking you to do from the beginning...you have not. It's a little sad to watch someone embarrass themselves as you have, but if you insist on doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result, that's entirely up to you.

The fact that you are now lying and stating I did not address the OP, and presumably because you couldn't handle my reply, is not a problem for me, but thought any onlookers might want to be aware of the actual truth and desperate measures some will take when they get can't win. It's called being a poor sport. Right, Sport?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry, haven't had time to look it up, yet; been busy lately. I'll be able to spend some time on it this weekend.

No hurry.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm not going to take a course in this just to draw the same

And this is why you will never learn anything new.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And this is why you will never learn anything new.

If someone gave you some complicated version of how Micky Mouse created the Universe, would you make it a point to get educated until you managed to think you've fathomed such nonsense or would you take the simple to understand signs it is nonsense and leave it at that. I mean, it's clear what you would do, but not all of us would.

But forget about that, stating I will never learn anything new because I don't choose to learn about your nonexistent evolution, makes absolutely no sense at all. Sounds like a lot of the desperate nonsensical attempts to berate that I often hear come out of the losing side of these arguments.

 

[USincognito]

USingognito, you badgered[

Oh please. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

me into addressing your op in spite of my general comments it was based on assumptions,

As I have told you. Using "assumptions" as if it were a magical word like "abracadabra" to try and poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke is an inane and impotent tactic used by far too many Creationists. The problem is when the smoke clears, the evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

The fact that you are now lying and stating I did not address the OP, and presumably because you couldn't handle my reply, is not a problem for me,

Sorry, but you're the one that is lying. You never addressed the content of the OP. You responded with blather and rhetoric, but you did not address a single point in the OP or any of the four other evidences posted on the first page or subsequently. 'I don't like it', is not "addressing".

but thought any onlookers might want to be aware of the actual truth and desperate measures some will take when they get can't win. It's called being a poor sport. Right, Sport?

Hey onlookers! Is this the truth?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

But forget about that, stating I will never learn anything new because I don't choose to learn about your nonexistent evolution, makes absolutely no sense at all.

You have refused to address any of the evidence for evolution throughout the entire thread. Are you not intellectually curious enough to learn something new or are you scared you might be wrong?

If you're at all interested, the chair of the biology department at Duke has a free class you can take online right here:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh please. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

How could stating you badgered me be the least bit embarrassing when any one who likes can go back and see it's a fact? Never embarrassed by the truth.

As I have told you. Using "assumptions" as if it were a magical word like "abracadabra" to try and poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke is an inane and impotent tactic used by far too many Creationists. The problem is when the smoke clears, the evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

I was clear when I commented on that but maybe you can get someone to miss that and believe you.

Sorry, but you're the one that is lying. You never addressed the content of the OP. You responded with blather and rhetoric, but you did not address a single point in the OP or any of the four other evidences posted on the first page or subsequently. 'I don't like it', is not "addressing".

I never really knew what to tell someone who was in such deep denial they couldn't see what was right in front of them, so...

 

[RealityCheck01]

Kenny'sID have you read and understand 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent yet?

P.S.
The point is that anyone who know about science knows that it works using evidence, not proof as in mathematics.
Common decent makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been verified.

How about an extremely simple question for you.
25 July 2016 Kenny'sID: Does DNA paternity testing work by basically looking for common bits of DNA between the sample and a proposed parent?

ETA: You seem to be avoiding the issue of stating what assumptions that scientists make (that maybe makes all science including the bit that allows you to read this post wrong ?).
26 July 2016 Kenny'sID : What are these assumptions that scientists make?
You should have listed them in this thread or elsewhere so the question will be extremely easy to answer.

 

[Larniavc]

If someone gave you some complicated version of how Micky Mouse created the Universe, would you make it a point to get educated until you managed to think you've fathomed such nonsense or would you take the simple to understand signs it is nonsense and leave it at that. I mean, it's clear what you would do, but not all of us would.

But forget about that, stating I will never learn anything new because I don't choose to learn about your nonexistent evolution, makes absolutely no sense at all. Sounds like a lot of the desperate nonsensical attempts to berate that I often hear come out of the losing side of these arguments.

That you think academia is akin to Micky Mouse is a damning endictment on the anti intellectualism rife in some areas of Western culture today.

It's really sad that this rejection of science is so wide spread and pernicious.
But that's on you: no one else.

Smh.

 

[Loudmouth]

You do? Often think, that is.

You aren't doing it now, you are in reality being dishonest...just because you "think" I'm being dishonest doesn't mean it's a fact. But you can all get your jollies for that whether justified or not, I get it. You are so far behind in all this, I suppose you have to strike back somehow.

Once again, you have claimed that scientists are using assumptions without showing what those assumptions are. In an honest debate, you would show us what those assumptions are or address the evidence that is given.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Once again, you have claimed that scientists are using assumptions without showing what those assumptions are.

I think it's safe to assume you aren't paying attention or you are in denial as some others here are.

In an honest debate, you would show us what those assumptions are or address the evidence that is given.

Denial is dishonest to you and others around you. Then there is flat out lying, but you already know about that. Give me some evidence, and I'll address it....you fail to see, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. When one wants to see evidence badly enough they do...there or not. They can try to create that evidence by fooling themselves, and that apparently works, but they shouldn't be disappointed if others don't buy into the delusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it's safe to assume you aren't paying attention or you are in denial as some others here are.

Still waiting for you to describe the assumptions that scientists are using.

Denial is dishonest to you and others around you. Then there is flat out lying, but you already know about that. Give me some evidence, and I'll address it....

I already did. I did it here:

Creationists have claimed that Macroevolution is not testable. They couldn't be farther from the truth. Here is the test for macroevolution as described clear back in 1965 before we had any real DNA sequence data:

"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."

Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.

In short, it was predicted 50 years ago that there should be a match between independent DNA based trees and morphological trees.

So does macroevolution pass that test? Yep, sure does:

"So, how well do phylogenetic trees from morphological studies match the trees made from independent molecular studies? There are over 10^38 different possible ways to arrange the 30 major taxa represented in Figure 1 into a phylogenetic tree . . . 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 . . . 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

For 30 groups there are 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to organize them into a tree. There is just 1 tree out of those billions and billions of possible trees that is a perfect match to the predictions made the theory of macroevolution. We see that exact tree.

That is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

you fail to see, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. When one wants to see evidence badly enough they do...there or not. They can try to create that evidence by fooling themselves, and that apparently works, but they shouldn't be disappointed if others don't buy into the delusion.

Then show me how that is not evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

I think it's safe to assume you aren't paying attention or you are in denial as some others here are.



Denial is dishonest to you and others around you. Then there is flat out lying, but you already know about that. Give me some evidence, and I'll address it....you fail to see, evidence is in the eye of the beholder. When one wants to see evidence badly enough they do...there or not. They can try to create that evidence by fooling themselves, and that apparently works, but they shouldn't be disappointed if others don't buy into the delusion.

Serious projection.

 

[Larniavc]

Give me some evidence, and I'll address it..

Please may you describe exactly the kind of evidence you need to see?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Serious projection.

I already did. I did it here:

How but a little more serious projection? You definitely aren't paying attention. Guess to forgot the conversation we had on that.

Please may you describe exactly the kind of evidence you need to see?

We're starting to repeat the same questions now are we? Are you seriously asking me that? The kind of evidence that proves evolution without assuming it into reality.