Why Evolution is True (3)

[46AND2]

Because it is not clear. If I read an article that says flatworms were the oldest living common ancestor of man, that is pretty clear. Wrong and diabolical, but clear. To claim some mystery supposed ancestor that you can't say what it is, seems like a dodge.



Your real or imagined ancestor? You know who it was?

Hilarious. Presto. The unknown ancestor did it all. Or, there was no DNA in the time of Noah and before? But for whatever reason (you don't know) you just do not know who this mystery ancestor was. All by faith! Do you guys ever think about your religion??
So you expect there would be no proof for the claimed mystery ancestor..dna..fossils or anything else! Do not call that science. That is ridiculous!

*sigh* Dad, dad, dad...when are you going to learn about the term "inference" or "deduction?"

One can gain certainty of something without witnessing it firsthand. We do it ALL THE TIME. The only time you complain about it is because it contradicts your pet dogma (pardon the pun).

We have not observed Pluto's full orbit around the sun, but we know how long it takes...people are sent to jail for witnessless crimes...we know the sun rose, just as it always did, despite the fact that we slept through sunrise...etc, etc, etc.

Best of all, using DNA, you can find relatives that YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU HAD. And the DNA tells us the very same thing about chimps, using essentially the same techniques.

 

[dad]

I doubt if the article said that. You clearly misunderstood it.

Leaving the article aside, it doesn't matter if it said that, or if you would agree. The issue is that if an article claimed we had a certain living common ancestor, that would be specific.

Real. Can you name all of your ancestors?

That is not a scientific test. You can't invent something then claim it is just as real as grandparents we can't name.

That would be 2 parents, easy, 4 grandparents, still a piece of cake, 8 great grandparents, now it is getting a bit more difficult and we probably have barely covered a hundred years.

Irrelevant fogginess.

Noah was a myth.

IN your mind. In God's mind he was very real.

And usable testable DNA that shows heritage breaks down fairly quickly.

Convenient excuse why you have none.

But we have other evidence than the DNA of fossils. We have the fossils themselves.

So you have the ancestors in fossils? Show us the fossil of the common ancestor that was cited?

We have the comparable DNA of humans and other apes.

One minute you have none, the next you claim you do. Which will be your official claim here?

 

[46AND2]

One minute you have none, the next you claim you do. Which will be your official claim here?

Perhaps if you actually took the time to, you know, learn evolution, you would know that SD is referring to something completely different than what I said we "highly likely" have none of.

SD is talking about current apes to compare DNA to. I was talking about the specific common ancestor of humans and chimps, which is highly likely to have not been fossilized, and DNA completely decayed, even if it was.

 

[dad]

*sigh* Dad, dad, dad...when are you going to learn about the term "inference" or "deduction?"

That has to be based on something. Otherwise the terms you need ate fable and stories, and fiction.

One can gain certainty of something without witnessing it firsthand.

Like the flood!

We do it ALL THE TIME. The only time you complain about it is because it contradicts your pet dogma (pardon the pun).

No, if a science claim is made you need to do more than infer imaginary relatives!

We have not observed Pluto's full orbit around the sun, but we know how long it takes...people are sent to jail for witnessless crimes...we know the sun rose, just as it always did, despite the fact that we slept through sunrise...etc, etc, etc.

We have enough info on Pluto to infer. You have seen Pluto, you haven't seen your wholly imaginary common ancestor!

Best of all, using DNA, you can find relatives that YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW YOU HAD.

Too bad you admit we can't use that to find your imaginary ape granny.

And the DNA tells us the very same thing about chimps, using essentially the same techniques.

No. You would descend into blind faith, and biased assumptions, the DNA itself tells us nothing of some man/ape.

 

[dad]

Perhaps if you actually took the time to, you know, learn evolution, you would know that SD is referring to something completely different than what I said we "highly likely" have none of.

SD is talking about current apes to compare DNA to. I was talking about the ancestors of those apes (and us) which we do not have.

I know. But you can't do that in reality. Try it and see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Leaving the article aside, it doesn't matter if it said that, or if you would agree. The issue is that if an article claimed we had a certain living common ancestor, that would be specific.
That is not a scientific test. You can't invent something then claim it is just as real as grandparents we can't name.

We don't do that. You do that. Don't project your sins upon others. And you should be honest and admit that you probably did not understand the article.

Irrelevant fogginess.

An admission of defeat on your part. Once more dad is defeated.

IN your mind. In God's mind he was very real.

You have no idea what God thinks. You are making a false idol of the Bible.

Convenient excuse why you have none.

No, honesty. You should try it some time.

So you have the ancestors in fossils? Show us the fossil of the common ancestor that was cited?

We don't have fossils for every single step. In fact many steps are missing. The important point is that all fossils found fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationists have no explanation for the fossils that has not been debunked long long ago.

One minute you have none, the next you claim you do. Which will be your official claim here?

And another reading comprehension fail.

Creationists have quite a few of these. Is it due to their prejudice or is it due to other causes?

 

[46AND2]

We have enough info on Pluto to infer.

ANNND there it is. We ALSO have enough info to infer common ancestry with chimps. More than enough. I'm sorry it isn't the type of info you like. Nevertheless, people who actually know what the info is, know that it is more than plenty.

 

[dad]

ANNND there it is. We ALSO have enough info to infer common ancestry with chimps. More than enough. I'm sorry it isn't the type of info you like. Nevertheless, people who actually know what the info is, know that it is more than plenty.

Not true. People who know would know that is a crock. You wade into deep assumptive waters when you assume that the similarities in beasts or vegetables and man are due to common ancestors. That is not science.

 

[46AND2]

Not true. People who know would know that is a crock. You wade into deep assumptive waters when you assume that the similarities in beasts or vegetables and man are due to common ancestors. That is not science.

Not similarities, dad. PATTERNS of similarities. The same kind of patterns that allow us to determine paternity among humans.

 

[createdtoworship]

You don't use peer reviewed articles.

either this post is naively wrong, or an outright lie, but on my avian post I gave a peer review, and a summary review of it

here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7838788-4/#post66217412

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll, you have several chores to do first before you can make demands of anyone.


You do not play the victim well.

I figured as much,

another dodge from evidence.

so when are you going to read the avian peer review I posted?

It's not behind a pay wall so no more excuses.

(I linked it in my last post)

 

[46AND2]

either this post is naively wrong, or an outright lie, but on my avian post I gave a peer review, and a summary review of it

here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7838788-4/#post66217412

Clearly he was speaking in general terms. A large portion of the links you use are not peer reviewed. The few that are, you misrepresent, because you don't understand them. So, you don't really use those, either, you misuse them.

 

[createdtoworship]

I said the 90% with cats used the same methods as the 96-98% with chimps. Do try to pay attention. The 60-70% method was different from both.

how is this so, since the 95-99% doesn't even mention homologous genes in it's studies. You may be correct, but i am skeptical.

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn't matter whether "your" method is the right or wrong way, or not. That is not what the issue is here.

The issue is that you are comparing two different methods; apples and oranges.

And no, we didn't evolve from cats. We didn't evolve from chimps, either. We DO share a common ancestor with both. Our common ancestor with cats was much, much longer ago than our common ancestor with chimps.

so how do we compare to cats anyway?

 

[dad]

We don't do that.

We shall see.

You have no idea what God thinks.

I have the mind of God on it actually.

You are making a false idol of the Bible.

Like Jesus did?

We don't have fossils for every single step.

Ha, so you invent what is missing. OK.

In fact many steps are missing. The important point is that all fossils found fit the evolutionary paradigm.

They fit the creation also. Fancy that. You have no monopoly on fit. Just because you think you are related to a potato doesn't make your story valid.

Creationists have no explanation for the fossils that has not been debunked long long ago.

False. Name any fossil, I can explain it. You have no monopoly on explanations. You claim some unknown ancestor eventually produced a sort of flatworm, and that is what produced all animals and man!

Your false science is garbage and total religion.

 

[dad]

Not similarities, dad. PATTERNS of similarities. The same kind of patterns that allow us to determine paternity among humans.

Not true. Show an example.

 

[46AND2]

how is this so, since the 95-99% doesn't even mention homologous genes in it's studies. You may be correct, but i am skeptical.

The "study" that found 60-70% is, as far as I know, the only one of it's kind. No scientific study has published results in that manner. So, comparing it to ANY other similarity percentage study and drawing comparisons is apples to oranges.

 

[46AND2]

Not true. Show an example.

It's absolutely true, dad. Denial doesn't make it go away.

There are literally hundreds (probably many, many thousands, actually) of examples which corroborate not only DNA (in that alone there are dozens of independent studies of patterned similarity), but also bio-diversity, embryology, paleontology, and several more completely independent scientific disciplines.

If you like, I can give you three independent verifications, using JUST ERVs.

And it isn't good enough to say that there are "problems" with all of those studies, you must also explain how they can all be wrong in such a manner that they get the same "wrong" answer. If you keep coming up with the same answer in many different ways, you can INFER that the answer is most likely correct. And we have come up with the same answer in so many ways, it is virtually assured to be the right answer.

 

[dad]

It's absolutely true, dad. Denial doesn't make it go away.

It is false, denial doesn't help you.

There are literally hundreds of examples which corroborate not only DNA (in that alone there are dozens of independent studies of patterned similarity),

You cannot go back far enough to matter in the origins debate! YOU WOULD BE SAILING BY PURE FAITH ALONE.

but also bio-diversity, embryology, paleontology, and several more completely independent scientific disciplines.

None go back where you need them to, not even close.

If you like, I can give you three independent verifications, using JUST ERVs.

ERVs were transferred in the former state, not here. That means we can forget reproduction as a player.

And it isn't good enough to say that there are "problems" with all of those studies, you must also explain how they can all be wrong in such a manner that they get the same "wrong" answer.

Forget that. I say they know not what they are talking about...really.

If you keep coming up with the same answer in many different ways, you can INFER that the answer is most likely correct.

Absurd. You simply make the same mistakes applying your beliefs on different things!

And we have come up with the same answer in so many ways, it is virtually assured to be the right answer.

Unless you use the right premises it is assured to be wrong! Guaranteed.

 

[46AND2]

It is false, denial doesn't help you.



You cannot go back far enough to matter in the origins debate! YOU WOULD BE SAILING BY PURE FAITH ALONE.

None go back where you need them to, not even close. ERVs were transferred in the former state, not here. That means we can forget reproduction as a player.
Forget that. I say they know not what they are talking about...really.



Absurd. You simply make the same mistakes applying your beliefs on different things!
Unless you use the right premises it is assured to be wrong! Guaranteed.

The only thing that is absurd is your hand-waving and ad hoc past state fantasy.