We are all looking at the same evidence - really?

[In situ]

Why you need good self control when arguing with creationists.

 

[SkyWriting]

The same goes in court.

...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

 

[In situ]

The same goes in court.

...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

After a short glance; unlike creationist, biologist does not use witness statements (the Bible) but physical evidence (facts). So what is the perceived problem in your opinion, and like said before this is not a "recommended reading" forum but a discussion forum, if you have valid point would you mind clarifying yourself?

Otherwise I am afraid I will just have to discard your comment as yet another "I don't like evolution therefore I don't accept the evidence" complain about the Theory of Evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

After a short glance; unlike creationist, biologist does not use witness statements (the Bible) but physical evidence (facts). So what is the perceived problem in your opinion, and like said before this is not a "recommended reading" forum but a discussion forum, if you have valid point would you mind clarifying yourself?

Otherwise I am afraid I will just have to discard your comment as yet another "I don't like evolution therefore I don't accept the evidence" complain about the Theory of Evolution.

You certainly may imagine and classify as you wish with very short glances.

My experience was that I didn't like the evidence for common origins of life.

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

 

[ecco]

SkyWriting earlier:

The same goes in court.​

My experience was that I didn't like the evidence...

So, if you don't like the evidence, you disregard it.


When selecting a jury, the prosecution and the defense ask prospective jurors questions to ascertain if there are any biases.

If, during this process you were asked "Would you disregard evidence just because you didn't like it" and you replied "Yes" do you think you would be qualified to sit on the jury?

 

[Loudmouth]

You certainly may imagine and classify as you wish with very short glances.

My experience was that I didn't like the evidence for common origins of life.

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

People on death row and convicted on the weight of eye witness testimony have been exonerated by physical evidence. People lie, make up stories, and can be easily mistaken. That is why science uses empirical evidence.

 

[Skaloop]

The same goes in court.

...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.

And that single plausible explanation is evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why you need good self control when arguing with creationists.

View attachment 164783

And it's why creationists need good self control when arguing with evolutionits. Because they constantly ignore direct emperical and laboratory evidence.

All you have ever observed is Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the record. Suddenly - with no missing links between any of them. And no evolution involved.

All you have ever observed is Husky mates with Husky and produces a Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces a Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation (Chinook) seen in the record. Suddenly - with no missing links between any of them. And no evolution involved.

Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops. And those new forms that suddenly arose are nothing more than what we observe in real life - infraspecific taxa among the species or kind. Brought about by separate infraspecific taxa mating and the natural recombination of genomes into new dominant and recessive traits. There was no evolution and there were no missing links missing. No more than there are missing links between Asian and Afro-Asian or a Husky and Chinook.

And if they bothered to apply deductive reasoning: would realize this is why E coli remain E coli regardless that they were mutated billions of times in billions of generations. Because they are an infraspecific taxa within the species as an Asian is an infraspecific taxa within the species. They can never vary outside of their infraspecific taxa because they do not receive genes from separate infraspecific taxa within the same species as an Asian is capable of doing.

 

[Loudmouth]

And it's why creationists need good self control when arguing with evolutionits. Because they constantly ignore direct emperical and laboratory evidence.

All you have ever observed is Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African.

Asians came from Africans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Asians came from Africans.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-about-hgt.7914295/page-6#post-68785332

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/question-about-hgt.7914295/page-6#post-68785332

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/4/427.short

 

[Justatruthseeker]

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/4/427.short

"The results of a nested cladistic analysis indicated that these geographical associations arose through a combination of processes, including restricted, recurrent gene flow (isolation by distance) and range expansions. We inferred......

"We surveyed nine diallelic polymorphic sites on the Y chromosomes of 1,544 individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and the New World. Phylogenetic analyses of these nine sites resulted in a tree for 10 distinct Y haplotypes with a coalescence time of approximately 150,000 years. The 10 haplotypes were unevenly distributed among human populations: 5 were restricted to a particular continent, 2 were shared between Africa and Europe, 1 was present only in the Old World, and 2 were found in all geographic regions surveyed."

We inferred exactly the opposite of what the data said.

So if only one was present in the old world population then inference is wrong.... "We inferred that one of the oldest events in the nested cladistic analysis was a range expansion out of Africa which resulted in the complete replacement of Y chromosomes throughout the Old World"

But that one was found only in the old world - so could not have been replaced by anything.

As I said: Mutation exists only in the minds of those that think data should be altered to fit theory. Despite knowing they were interbreeding between each group, they somehow infer that interbreeding is not the cause of the change - even if we have NEVER observed change unless two or more different infraspecific taxa mate.

So again - you just proved my point - that it takes two or more different infraspecific taxa to create another.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Try the full text.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.full.pdf+html

Notice again the one thing on the tree that splits into two. Despite every familial tree we know of starts with two and ends up into one.

no, I don't believe we are looking at the same data because you keep ignoring 6,000 years of observational and proven data.

 

[aiki]

Why you need good self control when arguing with creationists.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1445020441508-1'); });

Why infographics are often guilty of Strawman arguing.

 

[Loudmouth]

But that one was found only in the old world - so could not have been replaced by anything.

As I said: Mutation exists only in the minds of those that think data should be altered to fit theory. Despite knowing they were interbreeding between each group, they somehow infer that interbreeding is not the cause of the change - even if we have NEVER observed change unless two or more different infraspecific taxa mate.

So again - you just proved my point - that it takes two or more different infraspecific taxa to create another.

"The results of a nested cladistic analysis indicated that these geographical associations arose through a combination of processes, including restricted, recurrent gene flow (isolation by distance) and range expansions. We inferred......

"We surveyed nine diallelic polymorphic sites on the Y chromosomes of 1,544 individuals from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and the New World. Phylogenetic analyses of these nine sites resulted in a tree for 10 distinct Y haplotypes with a coalescence time of approximately 150,000 years. The 10 haplotypes were unevenly distributed among human populations: 5 were restricted to a particular continent, 2 were shared between Africa and Europe, 1 was present only in the Old World, and 2 were found in all geographic regions surveyed."

We inferred exactly the opposite of what the data said.

So if only one was present in the old world population then inference is wrong.... "We inferred that one of the oldest events in the nested cladistic analysis was a range expansion out of Africa which resulted in the complete replacement of Y chromosomes throughout the Old World"

But that one was found only in the old world - so could not have been replaced by anything.

As I said: Mutation exists only in the minds of those that think data should be altered to fit theory. Despite knowing they were interbreeding between each group, they somehow infer that interbreeding is not the cause of the change - even if we have NEVER observed change unless two or more different infraspecific taxa mate.

So again - you just proved my point - that it takes two or more different infraspecific taxa to create another.

"The ancestral haplotype was limited to African populations."

Asians are descended from Africans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"The ancestral haplotype was limited to African populations."

Asians are descended from Africans.

And? Chinooks are decended from Husky and Mastiff's. So again - what other infraspecific taxa was involved????

Again - you can not show anything in observation of the natural world that does not require (two or more) separate infraspecific taxa.

I don't doubt at all we came from one species - of which we are still are. Just as all Husky came from wolves.

And if "The ancestral haplotype was limited to African populations." then Asians could not be descended from them in evolution - or they would possess this haplotype as well.

Every other race just happened to loose it, right?

The only logical conclusion is that African's descended from another infraspecific taxa and gained the haplotype from crossing with another that is now extinct.

Because as we know a haplotype "A haplotype is a set of DNA variations, or polymorphisms, that tend to be inherited together."

So that the African inherited it from breeding with another infraspecific taxa that was not available to the others and is now extinct is the only reasonable and logical solution.

It's not my fault they can't think beyond there pre-conceived beliefs and falsify their own beliefs with their own conclusions. For the haplotype - which is inherited changes - to occur only in the African - means only the infraspecific taxa that became Africans inherited it from another infraspecific taxa.

Two or more always - stop ignoring how we understand reproduction to occur and pretending in those trees that there was only one that became two. Stop ignoring the other half of the equation as demonstrated empirically every time life reproduces.

 

[Loudmouth]

And? Chinooks are decended from Husky and Mastiff's. So again - what other infraspecific taxa was involved????

Infraspecific taxa don't exist. They are something you made up.

What you call Asians are direct descendants of Africans. Africans became Asians. Africans didn't do this by mating with a third population. They directly became Asians.

 

[In situ]

You certainly may imagine and classify as you wish with very short glances.

Do you even know how it is done? If you did you would not say it was based on "wishes".

My experience was that I didn't like the evidence for common origins of life.

If that is your only objection then your objection can safely be ignored.

 

[In situ]

And it's why creationists need good self control when arguing with evolutionits. Because they constantly ignore direct emperical and laboratory evidence.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are funny!

 

[In situ]

Why infographics are often guilty of Strawman arguing.

Care to name one(1) straw man instead of making general sweeping statements?