Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Let me get this straight, if something is complex then a magic man must have designed it because there is no other way
[as far as you're concerned] it could have come about, am I close?

If you would like to explain how the inner cell evolved each and every function and feature explained I would be glad to listen.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, no evidence of how molecular machines could arise or how their purposeful function arose with them.

That evidence is the nested hierarchy.

In fact, man produced the nested hierarchy using ad hoc categorization with creatures that were created through adaptation and change in a process that looking back upon can be put into different kinds of life forms. Exactly what we would expect with what Genesis says we should see.

Adaptation is evolution. You are saying that life evolved, not intelligently designed.

The recognition of design is present, it is hand waved away by claiming it is an illusion. The evidence is the design seen in life forms.

Illusions are not evidence.

Exactly, just like we don't find evidence for trees and flowers in the pre-cambrian like Genesis 1 claims.

Right. Which is why no theory is solely supported by not finding trees and flowers in the pre-Cambrian. No one but you is supporting a claim solely on negative evidence.

We are looking back at creation. Life is made up of different kinds that came from the same kinds prior to them and followed by others of the same.

Since all eukaryotes, from humans to amoeba, fall into a nested hierarchy, does that mean that they are the same kind and evolved from the same common ancestor?

We see it because that is how we have categorized life forms.

False. It is an objective measurement. It is a scientific measurement. It isn't just made up.

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy​

Nonsense.

You still haven't explained why we see a nested hierarchy when a designer could create life in so many different patterns that aren't a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you would like to explain how the inner cell evolved each and every function and feature explained I would be glad to listen.

Why don't you explain how a supernatural deity designed the cell. Give us a step by step procedure of how it was done.

 

[RickG]

Exactly, just like we don't find evidence for trees and flowers in the pre-cambrian like Genesis 1 claims. We don't have those fossils but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Yes, it does mean they don't exist then. In fact there are no terrestrial Precambrian or even Cambrian fossils at all. They are all of marine origin. Flowers don't appear in the fossil record until the Cretaceous Period around 130 Ma.

 

[Jan Volkes]

If you would like to explain how the inner cell evolved each and every function and feature explained I would be glad to listen.

As it happens I don't know but even if I did explain it to you it would not change your mind, all you would do is latch onto something else and ask for that to be explained to you, I recommend you stick with the magic man?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it does mean they don't exist then. In fact there are no terrestrial Precambrian or even Cambrian fossils at all. They are all of marine origin. Flowers don't appear in the fossil record until the Cretaceous Period around 130 Ma.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html

Article preview View full access options

Nature | Letter

Ediacaran life on land

• Gregory J. Retallack

Nature
493,
89–92
(03 January 2013)
doi:10.1038/nature11777
Received
11 July 2012
Accepted
09 November 2012
Published online
12 December 2012

Ediacaran (635–542million years ago) fossils have been regarded as early animal ancestors of the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of marine invertebrate phyla1, as giant marine protists2 and as lichenized fungi3. Recent documentation of palaeosols in the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite of South Australia4 confirms past interpretations of lagoonal–aeolian deposition based on synsedimentary ferruginization and loessic texture5, 6. Further evidence for palaeosols comes from non-marine facies, dilation cracks, soil nodules, sand crystals, stable isotopic data and mass balance geochemistry4. Here I show that the uppermost surfaces of the palaeosols have a variety of fossils in growth position, including Charniodiscus, Dickinsonia, Hallidaya, Parvancorina, Phyllozoon, Praecambridium, Rugoconites, Tribrachidium and ‘old-elephant skin’ (ichnogenus Rivularites7). These fossils were preserved as ferruginous impressions, like plant fossils8, and biological soil crusts9, 10 of Phanerozoic eon sandy palaeosols. Sand crystals after gypsum11 and nodules of carbonate12 are shallow within the palaeosols4, even after correcting for burial compaction13. Periglacial involutions and modest geochemical differentiation of the palaeosols are evidence of a dry, cold temperate Ediacaran palaeoclimate in South Australia4. This new interpretation of some Ediacaran fossils as large sessile organisms of cool, dry soils, is compatible with observations that Ediacaran fossils were similar in appearance and preservation to lichens and other microbial colonies of biological soil crusts3, rather than marine animals1, or protists2.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ediacaran (635–542million years ago) fossils have been regarded as early animal ancestors of the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of marine invertebrate phyla1, as giant marine protists2 and as lichenized fungi3.

Protists and fungi do not a tree make.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why don't you explain how a supernatural deity designed the cell. Give us a step by step procedure of how it was done.

You are claiming that evolution is completely capable of producing the inner workings of the cell. This is a natural process that you claim has been shown to produce it. This takes evidence to make that claim.

Supernatural means do not need natural explanations of how they occur. It is well understood that God would have the means to produce said features.

 

[The Cadet]

No lack of focus I am babysitting. Let me try again. In snowflakes and crystals there is no complexity in function or purpose. The molecular machines in living things are very purposeful and complex.

So... what's the "purpose" of HIV Protease mechanics?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are claiming that evolution is completely capable of producing the inner workings of the cell.

I am claiming that natural processes are able to do that, which includes transcription and translation. Or are you trying to argue that proteins appear by magic inside of cells?

 

[Oncedeceived]

As it happens I don't know but even if I did explain it to you it would not change your mind, all you would do is latch onto something else and ask for that to be explained to you, I recommend you stick with the magic man?

And you will never change your mind about the magic maker Natural Selection of evolution. You will continue even after seeing just how far fetched it is for a mindless, purposeless process with no goals to produce such complicated and complex molecular machines that we find in life forms on earth to think it is a product of this mindless, purposeless process.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So... what's the "purpose" of HIV Protease mechanics?

There is no purpose. It is a disease. Just like every other disease.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am claiming that natural processes are able to do that, which includes transcription and translation. Or are you trying to argue that proteins appear by magic inside of cells?

Here I will show you how proteins "appear" in the cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here I will show you how proteins "appear" in the cell.

What supernatural processes are you saying are involved? Where is the evidence for those supernatural mechanisms?

 

[RickG]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7430/full/nature11777.html

Article preview View full access options

Nature | Letter

Ediacaran life on land

• Gregory J. Retallack

Nature
493,
89–92
(03 January 2013)
doi:10.1038/nature11777
Received
11 July 2012
Accepted
09 November 2012
Published online
12 December 2012

Ediacaran (635–542million years ago) fossils have been regarded as early animal ancestors of the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of marine invertebrate phyla1, as giant marine protists2 and as lichenized fungi3. Recent documentation of palaeosols in the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite of South Australia4 confirms past interpretations of lagoonal–aeolian deposition based on synsedimentary ferruginization and loessic texture5, 6. Further evidence for palaeosols comes from non-marine facies, dilation cracks, soil nodules, sand crystals, stable isotopic data and mass balance geochemistry4. Here I show that the uppermost surfaces of the palaeosols have a variety of fossils in growth position, including Charniodiscus, Dickinsonia, Hallidaya, Parvancorina, Phyllozoon, Praecambridium, Rugoconites, Tribrachidium and ‘old-elephant skin’ (ichnogenus Rivularites7). These fossils were preserved as ferruginous impressions, like plant fossils8, and biological soil crusts9, 10 of Phanerozoic eon sandy palaeosols. Sand crystals after gypsum11 and nodules of carbonate12 are shallow within the palaeosols4, even after correcting for burial compaction13. Periglacial involutions and modest geochemical differentiation of the palaeosols are evidence of a dry, cold temperate Ediacaran palaeoclimate in South Australia4. This new interpretation of some Ediacaran fossils as large sessile organisms of cool, dry soils, is compatible with observations that Ediacaran fossils were similar in appearance and preservation to lichens and other microbial colonies of biological soil crusts3, rather than marine animals1, or protists2.

Interesting, thanks. However, still not flowers. Right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Interesting, thanks. However, still not flowers. Right?

No evidence of them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What supernatural processes are you saying are involved? Where is the evidence for those supernatural mechanisms?

What are the natural ones? Like I said, it is not denied that God being a supernatural Being would not have the ability to produce such mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are the natural ones?

The natural ones are RNA transcription and protein translation. What are the supernatural ones?

 

[RickG]

No evidence of them.

Show a flower in the Ediacaran and you will certainly shake the scientific world. As for Ediacaran terrestrial fossils, I did notice that your cited paper and several others I was able to source are rather recent, thus an indication that I'm not up to date with respect to the earliest terrestrial fossils.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show a flower in the Ediacaran and you will certainly shake the scientific world. As for Ediacaran terrestrial fossils, I did notice that your cited paper and several others I was able to source are rather recent, thus an indication that I'm not up to date with respect to the earliest terrestrial fossils.

Right, and I might add this was heavily disputed and was about as welcome as the flowers would be I assure you.