proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Look my friend, you can nit pick apart an obvious analogy that I just threw out there at the top of my head but you and I both know the point is made very well.

Well, no, because of the reasons I mentioned. If we didn't have that evidence regarding who built the Pyramids, then we wouldn't just say that the Egyptians built them - in fact there are structures in the middle east and in the UK that appear to have been built prior to the Pyramids, but don't have markings on them and are built in different ways. We haven't assumed anything about who built them, and still don't know for sure who did... Despite Stonehenge find Malta’s temples still oldest oldest

What this boils down to is a simple question that strikes at the heart of the issue. That being "If it could be proven to you that creation were true and that the God of the Bible were real would you become a Christian?"

I wouldn't be an Atheist, that's for sure. If that did happen, then I guess research would then be undertaken to see how many supernatural beings there are and how powerful they might be. I'd certainly still have questions about the morality of God and would reserve worship until I had a clearer picture - let's face it, I've read the Bible, Qur'An and Torah and regardless of which God it turns out to be, I'm not going to be able to pull the wool over his eyes with pretend worship and adoration that's not sincere.

Because I know exactly how I would answer that question in reverse. If it could be proven to me that evolution were true it would mean that the Bible could not be inspired from an all knowing God and thus I would promptly toss mine in the waste can and never darken the doorway of another church. That is how dedicated I am to what is true,

Wow. You're aware that Biblical Literalists in the Christian faith are the minority by a long way, right? Many, many more Christians accept Science and all that goes with it and it doesn't shake their faith in the least. Unfortunately for you, Evolution, like any other scientific field, is an applied science. That's to say, it's so real that it's producing tangible results when practically applied. You'll never see the day when Evolution will be set aside as incorrect by the scientific community.

are you? If you are not then we are just spinning our wheels here.

I absolutely am. If there is a God, then I need to know about this, especially if there's an afterlife and rules by which we get there...

I don't know you tell me... can something finite also be infinite? If pink can't be invisible then finite things cannot also exist infinitely can they?

Of course not. How do you know a Multiverse (if one exists) is not infinite? I didn't say that it was finite, and since time as we know it is intrinsic to the properties inside and of this universe (and not outside of it, remember) then a Multiverse would be just as insulated as your supposed God is from what we know as time ... and for that matter, anything else outside this universe would be free of our temporal existence too.

Again if we observe evidence that our universe had a beginning (which we do)...then you tell me if things with beginnings fit within the standard definition of "infinite?"

It could be a Quickening of sorts - i.e. it might be that our universe collapses after a period of time and restarts from that infinitesimal point again. There was another posit I heard once where the entirety of the universe was bound at a single point and due to its concentration, time spent the proverbial eternity not ticking over while waiting for the inflation event to occur (remember, time as we know it is inside this universe, not outside of it). In this respect, the universe could be both eternal and have a perceived beginning. None of this is supported, mind you, so no need to panic - but there's as much support for that as there is for your God. Anyway, I found this link about parallel universes and the multiverse you might find interesting. It shows why Scientists are positing these possibilities...: Parallel Universes: Theories & Evidence

Patterns in snowflakes and crystals and chemical reactions are just basic laws of physics but those patterns do not display intent or purpose.

Neither does DNA.

A pattern in a snowflake may be beautiful but it doesn't do anything. For example the pattern in a snowflake could be expressed as a repeating pattern. A line like BCABCABCABCA. But the code found in the DNA molecule expresses specified information.

Are you aware that DNA and RNA and proteins that encode as a result are all just chemical reactions following all the basic laws of physics, just like those chemical reactions you were telling me about too?

A CAT SAT ON THE MAT is an example of how information can be expressed with intention or purpose as opposed to repetition.

Agreed, this isn't what DNA does though...

DNA uses specific code sequence arrangements as blue prints to produce the cells of a body and to produce them in the correct location.

which are evolved from billions of years of trial and error building on top of the minor successes prior. As mentioned just before, DNA is just very complex chemical reactions - otherwise known as Biochemistry! It follows all of the exact same laws of physics as snowflakes, crystals, nuclear reactions and basic chemistry does. It's just that it's very complex. Did you think it was something supernatural?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

not realy. here is a comparison of both flagellum and ttss:

(image from Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities)

as you can see: flagellum has some proteins that doesnt exist in the ttss and vice versa. actually: even the shared proteins arent identical but only similar. so by removing parts from the flagellum we will not get a ttss.

But if you remove parts, add parts and change parts, you do get ttss, right? OR if the flagellum and ttss were once the same thing, then diverged to have their own unique sets of operating parts, that would look just like these two items look with respect to each other, right? That's what the article this image is attached to says about them... I'll take their education and professional research over your layperson objections anytime.

 

[xianghua]

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

are you sure? take a look at this figure:

are they looks to you orthologous or not?

 

[Jimmy D]

are you sure? take a look at this figure:

View attachment 215992
are they seems to be orthologous or not?

I'll tell you what I think. It makes me quite angry that you repeatedly spam this stuff as if you've never been corrected on it.

What do you hope to achieve, do you think no one can remember or do you just not care?

A bonafide qualified and published geneticist told you "I want to know what the position of the lines means. Where's the sequence that's being compared? If they're not in the same positions, then they're not orthologous. If we can't tell whether they're in the same position, then we can't tell whether they're orthologous."

The fact you are trying this garbage again demonstrates how morally and intellectually bankrupt creationism really is.

#Ignored

 

[pitabread]

again: do you agree that ic systems exist in both living and non living things? if not, can you show why in biological system there is stepwise way and in non living things there isnt? if you cant, then we dont have any good evidence that its different.

I think all of this has been more than adequately explained to you and that you just ignore responses to the contrary.

And if you're going to continue to plead ignorance about the difference between living things and non-living things, then there is no hope for you in these discussions.

 

[omega2xx]

Here you go Omega, Loudmouth made this post a while back, it's a good starting point....

I originally wrote this post from another thread, but thought it deserved it's own thread. Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

The usual evo talking points with no explanation as to HOW it is possible. Hypothesis are not evidence. They are only a guess, which fits in perfectly with evolution. Cats producing cats and nothing but cats for 1000 of years supports "after their kind," and can't be falsified.

Since it can't be falsified, it is true.

Beans always producing beans and nothing but beans for 1000 of years proves "after their kind and can't be falsified.

Eagles always producing eagles and nothing but eagles for 1000 of years prove "after their kind and can't be falsified

Humans always producing humans and nothing but humans for 1000 of years prove after their kind and can't be falsified.

A land animal wading in the ocean eating fish, will NEVER cause a leg to become a fin or a nose to become a blowhole. Since it can't, it is already falsified.

 

[Speedwell]

A land animal wading in the ocean eating fish, will NEVER cause a leg to become a fin or a nose to become a blowhole. Since it can't, it is already falsified.

Are you asserting that the environment does not select for favorable somatic variation?

 

[Jimmy D]

The usual evo talking points with no explanation as to HOW it is possible. Hypothesis are not evidence. They are only a guess, which fits in perfectly with evolution. Cats producing cats and nothing but cats for 1000 of years supports "after their kind," and can't be falsified.

Since it can't be falsified, it is true.

Beans always producing beans and nothing but beans for 1000 of years proves "after their kind and can't be falsified.

Eagles always producing eagles and nothing but eagles for 1000 of years prove "after their kind and can't be falsified

Humans always producing humans and nothing but humans for 1000 of years prove after their kind and can't be falsified.

A land animal wading in the ocean eating fish, will NEVER cause a leg to become a fin or a nose to become a blowhole. Since it can't, it is already falsified.

Strange, you quoted my / Loudmouth’s post but utterly failed to make any reference to it in your response, just repeated your tired old catchphrases.

I thought it might have been of interest as you “know about DNA”.

 

[Jimmy D]

A land animal wading in the ocean eating fish, will NEVER cause a leg to become a fin or a nose to become a blowhole. Since it can't, it is already falsified.

I thought we had discussed the blowhole?

 

[PsychoSarah]

lets say that this is true.

No, what I said is true. Domains of proteins fold and can act independently of each other, look it up.

so we both agree that at least 2 proteins\genes required for a minimal (tipical) biological system.

No, since I was using the simplest multicellular eye as a reference. There are biological processes performed by individual small proteins, and even short sequences of RNA.

what do you think the chance to get such a system? even if we assume that the chance to get any gene separately is about 10^10 then the chance to get a minimal new system is on average 10^20.

I have no idea where you are getting these silly numbers from, honestly. Maybe trying to use the size of the human genome, and assuming that mutations are all equally likely (which isn't true, as some portions of genomes are more exposed and thus mutate far more frequently) and assuming that the average genome is the same length as a human genome (which also isn't the case; the average is much shorter)?

its too much mutations if we talking about mammals or reptiles.

Lol, it's not like sight originated for those vertebrates separately. Plus, you'd have to assume these blatantly incorrect things for your statement to hold weight:
1. that mutations can't result in more than one base pair or gene being added to the genome.
2. that genomes of organisms throughout time have always been about as large as the average multicellular vertebrate.
3. that all mutations are equally likely.
4. that the number of mutations happening in organisms overall isn't freaking huge


(you have about 39 trillion bacteria in your body, and since they all die and divide periodically, every time the bacteria in your body have replicated to replace old ones, about 117000000000 mutations within your own bacterial biome have occurred. And that's just in your body. Depending on your health, that could easily happen more frequently than once every two weeks. Just in your body, which is and extremely tiny fraction of the bacteria that exist worldwide.

 

[xianghua]

I think all of this has been more than adequately explained to you and that you just ignore responses to the contrary.

and i think that you just cant falsify this argument. whatever...

 

[pitabread]

and i think that you just cant falsify this argument. whatever...

Your entire argument is based a fallacy (false equivalence).

It's already been falsified just on that basis alone.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The usual evo talking points with no explanation as to HOW it is possible.

HOW was very much addressed in the post. So we're back to my question of what you mean by HOW. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. That is an excuse that admits you can't provide any real evidence.

We have posted evidence and you just ignored it.

Here are fossil hominids that have been found. You have no explanation for why all these fossils have been found at the times shown, do you? Why do they fit so well with evolution?

For information on the various ancestors, see Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .

That is because you have no quotes to support your opinions.

No, sorry, it is because science is not based on quote-mining. We could list thousands of quotes from the scientific literature, but that means nothing. Science is not determined by out of context quotes, but by scientific studies, which are reported in the scientific literature. We have already linked to some of those studies, and to pages that list many more of those studies.

 

[Jimmy D]

The truth is; you spirit blind atheist and science are not searching for evidence to prove God’s existence! You are only searching for evidence to satisfy your hatred for him, and your spirit blindness of wanting him to be nonexistent! Your hatred for God is what fuels your spirit blind life as a blob of monkey matter; so you can hate your very own power source of your own life; which is your spirit! And that’s how really smart you are with all your high education! You have no root, no center and no existence! I say again, the spiritually blind are leading the spiritually blind, and you have both fallen into the deepest, darkest ditch of your own stupidity of spirit blindness and hate! The question remains; are any of you over-educated spirit blind monkey people brave enough to venture into the spirit realm of God to find your evidence of his existence? Or are you afraid of what you will find in the sickening darkness of your hatred for him, and the infinite and real God power you will find in your spirit? For it is only there you and science will find your most solid evidence of my spirit father’s existence! And when you do find evidence of his existence, you might just want to kill yourself for your foolishness of your spirit blindness and hatred for him! I sincerely pray you won’t, because he loves you and wants to save you from you your spirit blindness; even in the darkness of your hatred for him! "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." The light of our spirit; the everlasting light of our spirit father!


I feel really sad for you and science, and I pray you will realize your own incredible, infinite power source of your spirit? For it is God and his power; his kingdom and his righteousness in you! There will be nothingness without God’s spirit energy; it is the power source of all life, including yours! Whether you want to see it or not, it is God’s truth and I pray you will see it? I have found my proof of God’s existence in me and in all life! I do not care about your spirit blind opinions of me, because I see and know who I am, what I am, where I came from and where I am going; there is not much I can say for you concerning that! You must find your own proof of God’s existence; it is the only way you will believe it! And I have done my best in pointing you in the right direction of finding it. Now it is all up to you, that blood is now on your own head! So, after your monkey matter soon dies and you meet with God in his spirit realm; you cannot say to him that no one ever told you how to find evidence of his existence! For you will all be found without excuse, and a scapegoat to blame for the foolishness of your spirit blindness and hatred for God! Take care my spirit brothers and sisters; God bless all of you with his spirit sight to see his infinite God power in you, and see much more than that!

Oh pipe down. I suggest you go and live in a cave if you don't like the luxuries "man's" inquisitiveness and endeavors has bought you.

 

[omega2xx]

We have posted evidence and you just ignored it.

Here are fossil hominids that have been found. You have no explanation for why all these fossils have been found at the times shown, do you? Why do they fit so well with evolution?

For information on the various ancestors, see Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .



No, sorry, it is because science is not based on quote-mining. We could list thousands of quotes from the scientific literature, but that means nothing. Science is not determined by out of context quotes, but by scientific studies, which are reported in the scientific literature. We have already linked to some of those studies, and to pages that list many more of those studies.

It is truly sad that some think pictures are evidence.

If you have thousands, It should be easy to post just one and the evidence that makes it true. Then go to you link, Fossil Humanoids and cut and paste the evidence they offered. I predict you will not.


Then explain, genetically of course, how the leg of a land animal could become the fin of a sea creature. I predict you can't so you will ignore this request.

 

[omega2xx]

HOW was very much addressed in the post. So we're back to my question of what you mean by HOW. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.

Amusing and telling. You call my definition "idiosyncratic" and don't know what it is. I don't have a definition. I use a dictionary. I will accept your definition if it is accurate.

 

[omega2xx]

I thought we had discussed the blowhole?

I would like any discussion to include the evidence as to HOW it is genetically possible.

 

[omega2xx]

Strange, you quoted my / Loudmouth’s post but utterly failed to make any reference to it in your response, just repeated your tired old catchphrases.

I thought it might have been of interest as you “know about DNA”.

What don't I know about DNA? Be sure to include any proven science that supports your opinion.

 

[omega2xx]

Are you asserting that the environment does not select for favorable somatic variation?

I am not asserting it, I am saying it outright.