The light of evolution: What would be lost

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't care who you claim to be. After the genome project and several examples of genetic markers for disease being found by comparing sequences from humans to human no one can rationally say that you cannot get at the data by comparison and disease history. Try that nonsense on someone else. It was your job to show that some practical application would be entirely lost if we did not have macroevolution and you have utterly failed.

The only thing lost is they would have to consider breed mating with breed instead of calling everything different species (such as Darwin's Finches) and speciation and the theory of evolution would be lost completely.

What they don't want to admit is that performing those tests which were sometimes fatal in the experiments, would have if done with humans instead, have solved the problems much sooner. It's just much less problematic if you kill a rat instead of a human.

 

[Smidlee]

Oh joy, probability calculations. You might do well to check out this video:

.

I only saw the first minute since it fill with errors. Most ID are evolutionist themselves. The statement " Natural selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease" is totally a religious statement and not scientific. There is no evidence that natural selection is more powerful than artificial selection which have showed to be limited. Evolutionist have a hard time separating their faith from actually facts.
Also how do cell reproduce? By magic or by it's mechanics which would make it a lot more complex than man made machines?

Now compare this video where the guy noted the more we learn about living system tha harder it becomes to separate living system from man made machines. Of course deep down we do not see ourselves as robots.

 

[justlookinla]

" Natural selection can make almost infinitesimally improbably events occur with ease" is totally a religious statement and not scientific.

Thing is, natural selection does not create a single new life form, only random/chance mutation does that. Natural selection only acts on, and populates (or depopulates) the new life forms produced by random/chance mutation. That all life in it's complexity and variety is produced by this method isn't supported by the scientific method but is rather nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions.

 

[sfs]

To summarize: 1) We really do use common descent to infer ancestral bases at variable sites in the human genome. 2) We really did use that information to help identify biochemical pathways linked to cholera resistance. 3) It is not an appeal to authority for a scientist to explain a scientific paper which he helped write, or to explain how he uses a concept in his own work.

 

[sfs]

I always just assumed sfs stood for Super Fly Scientist.

Puleeze. I don't even associate with fly scientists. (Now mice, on the other hand -- sure, some of my best friends work with mice. But flies? Ick.)

Yeah, yeah, that's not what you meant...

 

[Loudmouth]

Common building blocks.

Using common building blocks does not necessitate a nested hierarchy. Evolution does produce a nested hierarchy. With life, we observe a nested hierarchy which is why it is evidence for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually i had kids on forums try that before (laughing as they figure they are wasting my time checking). So I'll pass on spending my time like that. I do find it amusing that you are trying to claim that because of your alleged name you can prove a link on Harvard is in error for stating the real breakthrough came through analyzing sick people against those who didn't get sick.

You don't have to believe him. The methodologies are right there in the papers, as are the results.

I've debate real scientists and proven them wrong so it matters neither here or there to me. I would think it would be even more embarrassing for a real scientist to appeal to authority rather than facts.

The facts in the scientific study are being referenced.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing lost is they would have to consider breed mating with breed instead of calling everything different species (such as Darwin's Finches)

Where did the different breeds come from?

What they don't want to admit is that performing those tests which were sometimes fatal in the experiments, would have if done with humans instead, have solved the problems much sooner. It's just much less problematic if you kill a rat instead of a human.

Nature has already done the experiment. The biodiversity we see around us is the result.

 

[justlookinla]

Using common building blocks does not necessitate a nested hierarchy. Evolution does produce a nested hierarchy. With life, we observe a nested hierarchy which is why it is evidence for evolution.

Bacteria turning into bacteria is evidence for evolution. Still waiting for the evidence, based on the scientific method, that Darwinist evolution produced tactile sensory units from a single life form of long ago.

 

[MikeEnders]

What they don't want to admit is that performing those tests which were sometimes fatal in the experiments, would have if done with humans instead, have solved the problems much sooner. It's just much less problematic if you kill a rat instead of a human.

Well theres that and then theres what we have not covered at all (and I think that someone alluded to) and that is that so far we have been kind in assuming them correct that it has anything to do with any kind of evolution. We have found disease markers in a species that are far far far away from related to us . We have found similar genes in totally unrelated animals. SO can we look at the chimpanzee and human genome and map similar areas of genetic breakdown? Sure of course. We all know mutations are not random. We've known for awhile that certain areas are hot spots for mutations.

None of this makes any big deal to creationists. We see similar designs as breaking down in similar ways. SO lets say you start out with comparisons of humans to Chimpanzees and you come up with some areas to look at. Are we flabbergasted that a disease susceptibility occurs along those lines. Not at all. Biblical creationists maintain both man and creation suffer from the fall

Shucks examining mice and Pigs we are likely to come across areas that end up having some bearing on our own health and theres no close ancestry. My claim? Nope. We do this aallll the time. Mice are probably our number one research species.

So in reality they have double failed to show that if we didn't have macroevolution we would never have come across this data. Creationists could still have good cause to compare between chimpanzees and humans. Worse we already know we share some of the same diseases. What Creationist is phased by that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Bacteria turning into bacteria is evidence for evolution. Still waiting for the evidence, based on the scientific method, that Darwinist evolution produced tactile sensory units from a single life form of long ago.

Already presented that evidence. You continue to ignore it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

 

[Loudmouth]

Well theres that and then theres what we have not covered at all (and I think that someone alluded to) and that is that so far we have been kind in assuming them correct that it has anything to do with any kind of evolution. We have found disease markers in a species that are far far far away from related to us . We have found similar genes in totally unrelated animals.

References? All life is related, so how could there be an unrelated species? Also, which genes are you referring to?

SO can we look at the chimpanzee and human genome and map similar areas of genetic breakdown? Sure of course. We all know mutations are not random. We've known for awhile that certain areas are hot spots for mutations.

Without knowing the evolutionary relationships between humans and other primates, how would you determine which allele has the mutation and which allele has the ancestral sequence for a given gene?

None of this makes any big deal to creationists. We see similar designs as breaking down in similar ways. SO lets say you start out with comparisons of humans to Chimpanzees and you come up with some areas to look at. Are we flabbergasted that a disease susceptibility occurs along those lines. Not at all. Biblical creationists maintain both man and creation suffer from the fall

The problem is that you would not use the chimp sequence as a model for the ancestral sequence, so you would not be able to determine if an allele carried a mutation or the ancestral sequence.

Shucks examining mice and Pigs we are likely to come across areas that end up having some bearing on our own health and theres no close ancestry. My claim? Nope. We do this aallll the time. Mice are probably our number one research species.

If we didn't have the theory of evolution, how would you explain the observation that pigs and humans are genetically equidistant from mice? How would you use the mouse genome to help understand the mutations that occurred in the human lineage?

So in reality they have double failed to show that if we didn't have macroevolution we would never have come across this data.

You wouldn't since you wouldn't be able to determine which are mutations and which are ancestral sequences.

 

[MikeEnders]

To summarize: 1) We really do use common descent to infer ancestral bases at variable sites in the human genome.

To summarize you have not addressed any of the key objections.

1) It was the study of Humans not getting sick though exposed to cholera that provided the key breakthrough. Thats micro evolution not macro.

2) you are trying to invoke a strawman. No one claimed that you were appealing to authority by claiming what was done. I accused you rightfully of it because you attempted to answer my link that clearly states the comparison of sick to not sick exposed was the key part to what may lead to a breakthrough by claiming you were an author. Like I point blank said then you can't rebut what is said on Harvard's site by claiming you are an author. It rebuts nothing unless you are claiming the link lied or misleads. THAT is an appeal to authority

3) I have issues with you trying to go on and on about verifying who you are because it shows how sloppily you think even if you were a scientist. Verifying a name and an email address at any location does not a thing to verify that the poster here is that person. That any scientist would foolishly think it would prove anything makes me hope they are not taking any of my tax dollar and thats besides not being professional enough to spend all the time you do posting on Christian forums arguing with supposed fellow believers.

4) Your insinuation that even with genetic data from a variety of humans both with resistance and without it we could never ever come up with another way to discover genetic markers for cholera susceptibility is just babbling nonsense to any intelligent person.

 

[justlookinla]

Already presented that evidence. You continue to ignore it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

Nope, no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how tactile sensory units were created by evolution in that thread. If so, please reference the post number.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, no evidence, based on the scientific method, for how tactile sensory units were created by evolution in that thread. If so, please reference the post number.

Evasion, as usual.

 

[justlookinla]

Evasion, as usual.

Hopefully, those lurking the board will see that the claim that bacterial flagellum is the result of Darwinist evolution is a completely baseless claim by you and others.

Your failure to provide evidence, based on the scientific method, is for all to see.

 

[justlookinla]

Evasion, as usual.

You didn't include your post number. Was that an oversight?

 

[Loudmouth]

QUOTE="MikeEnders, post: 68222459, member: 250953"]To summarize you have not addressed any of the key objections.

1) It was the study of Humans not getting sick though exposed to cholera that provided the key breakthrough. Thats micro evolution not macro.[/quote]

Was it microevolution? How did you determine that it was a recently created allele instead of an already existing ancestral allele that goes way back?

2) you are trying to invoke a strawman. No one claimed that you were appealing to authority by claiming what was done. I accused you rightfully of it because you attempted to answer my link that clearly states the comparison of sick to not sick exposed was the key part to what may lead to a breakthrough by claiming you were an author. Like I point blank said then you can't rebut what is said on Harvard's site by claiming you are an author. It rebuts nothing unless you are claiming the link lied or misleads. THAT is an appeal to authority

sfs explained to you that it wasn't the key part to the breakthrough, and he showed you the methods and data from the study that supported his claim.

4) Your insinuation that even with genetic data from a variety of humans both with resistance and without it we could never ever come up with another way to discover genetic markers for cholera susceptibility is just babbling nonsense to any intelligent person.

You wouldn't be able to determine if it was a recently evolved allele or and ancestral allele. That is the breakthrough.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't include your post number. Was that an oversight?

It is on multiple posts, starting with the first page.

 

[justlookinla]

It is on multiple posts, starting with the first page.

You don't have a post number?