Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[tas8831]

The heavens declare the glory of God, and His handiwork.

No they don't.

Hyena pseudopenis.

 

[dad]

No they don't.

Hyena pseudopenis.

Any reason we should believe you, and erase the obvious, common sense, and the bible?

 

[MoneyGuy]

No they don't.

Hyena pseudopenis.

Oh, but they do.

 

[omega2xx]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

Maybe you don't read enough. I always support creation on the basis of real science, which refutes evolution.

The weakness of the TOE is that it can't prove anything it preaches.

Prove me wrong and post the evidence for natural selection, a basic doctrine of evolution.

 

[omega2xx]

That is because "randomness" is not the mechanism.

I don't care one way or another about materialism. But your not being convinced of something is not evidence that your unsupported alternative has merit.

"Also you being convinced of somethign is not evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the only relevant question is that changes to the genes are not directed by an intelligent powerful entity (God). They are true "accidents" from whatever mechanism. As such, they are random. They are not caused by some purposeful intention inherent in a design created beforehand. They just happen unexpectedly.

Why is it a problem, that mutation is random with respect to fitness?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe you don't read enough. I always support creation on the basis of real science, which refutes evolution.

That would be arguments against evolution, not FOR creaiton - just like he said.

(not that the arguments against evolution hold up off course)

The weakness of the TOE is that it can't prove anything it preaches.
Prove me wrong and post the evidence for natural selection, a basic doctrine of evolution.

Let's for the sake of the point being made, assume that evolution theory doesn't exist or even has just been demonstrated false.

Now... support your version of creationism.

 

[tas8831]

Any reason we should believe you, and erase the obvious, common sense, and the bible?

My common sense tells me that the phenomena occurring today also occurred in the past. My common sense tells me that ancient middle eastern religious texts are not inspired by any deity, rather, they are attempts of a pre-technological people to explain what they could not understand and to justify/codify their prejudices and superstitions. Etc...

Plus I have actual evidence. You have unsupported (and silly) assertions.

So - nothing on the brilliant design of the hyena pseudopenis?

 

[tas8831]

Maybe you don't read enough. I always support creation on the basis of real science, which refutes evolution.

No you do not.

I have read dozens of your posts and they are littered with half-baked and easily refuted assertions.

No science whatsoever.

The weakness of the TOE is that it can't prove anything it preaches.

Prove me wrong and post the evidence for natural selection, a basic doctrine of evolution.

5 seconds on the google:

Evolution and Natural Selection

 

[tas8831]

Oh, but they do.

No they don't.

Well, perhaps to those that do not understand basic biology or astronomy.

Then, that is sort of the point, isn't it?

This is why acceptance of religious tenets goes down the more educated and experienced someone is. Just a coincidence, I guess.

 

[tas8831]

"Also you being convinced of somethign is not evidence.

I have never claimed otherwise.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Any reason we should believe you, and erase the obvious, common sense, and the bible?

Common sense is pretty much useless in Science.
Two examples that come to mind
1) If there is a fire, cs tells us to use cold water to put it out. But it is better to use hot water. If you want, I can explain the reason.
2) If there is a metal block of a piece of ice which is floating in water, and the ice melts, cs would tell you that the water level will rise, but...

 

[dad]

My common sense tells me that the phenomena occurring today also occurred in the past.

Unless supported by evidence, it is actually unsupported belief that tells you that.

My common sense tells me that ancient middle eastern religious texts are not inspired by any deity, rather, they are attempts of a pre-technological people to explain what they could not understand and to justify/codify their prejudices and superstitions. Etc...

Real common sense does not fly in the face of reason and history. Learn the difference between baseless biased preferential intuition and commons sense.

Plus I have actual evidence. You have unsupported (and silly) assertions.

No. You just think you do. This is one reason you don't post it.

So - nothing on the brilliant design of the hyena pseudopenis?

Since it makes reproduction difficult, I suspect it is an adapting/evolving from something else, rather than the designed created kind.

 

[pitabread]

Unless supported by evidence, it is actually unsupported belief that tells you that.

I seem to recall previously asking you what your epistemological basis was, and I don't think you ever gave an answer...

That you keep dismissing everything as a mere "belief" suggests that you don't really have a basis for distinguishing what is real or not.

 

[Brightmoon]

Speaking of hyenas and that lovely female pseudopenis( just thinking about that makes me cringe I’ve had children ) . You’re aware of the fact that while they look like dogs they’re actually feliform Carnivora. That also is evidence that caniform Carnivora and the feliforms are related. Both descended from a common ancestor and in this case it shows.

 

[omega2xx]

No you do not.

I have read dozens of your posts and they are littered with half-baked and easily refuted assertions.

No science whatsoever.


5 seconds on the google:

Evolution and Natural Selection

If it only take 5 seconds, you take them a prove me wrong.

You would if you could, but YOU CAN'T.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If it only take 5 seconds, you take them a prove me wrong.

You would if you could, but YOU CAN'T.

Nobody can prove you wrong, because you categorically ignore / dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your a priori religious beliefs, which do not allow you to actually accept evidence that doesn't agree with it.

Just own up to that, for honesty's sake.

Literally no amount of evidence is going to convince you about evolution, because you have already decided that you are going to stick to your creationist beliefs - and you did not arrive at those beliefs through a carefull examination of the evidence. Instead, it's just baggage that came with your particular interpretation of the bible.

To quote Dr Gregory House: "You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place...."

 

[dad]

I seem to recall previously asking you what your epistemological basis was, and I don't think you ever gave an answer...

That you keep dismissing everything as a mere "belief" suggests that you don't really have a basis for distinguishing what is real or not.

No. My beliefs are well supported. The bible is well supported. In history, archaeological evidences, observations of billions of people, in eyewitnesses, in fulfilled prophesies, etc.

Your claimed nature in the past has precisely no evidence whatsoever. Not all beliefs are equal.

 

[pitabread]

No. My beliefs are well supported. The bible is well supported. In history, archaeological evidences, observations of billions of people, in eyewitnesses, in fulfilled prophesies, etc.

But what's your epistemological basis though?

Claiming you believe the Bible because of history, archaeology, etc but then turning around and dismissing other things because you believe in a "different past" is contradictory. How do you know that history is valid? And what about history/archaeology that disagrees with events in the Bible (i.e. the Exodus, Noah's Flood, etc)? Do you just pick and choose what you want to believe? What's your criteria for distinguishing valid ideas from invalid ones?

 

[dad]

But what's your epistemological basis though?

Claiming you believe the Bible because of history, archaeology, etc but then turning around and dismissing other things because you believe in a "different past" is contradictory.

No, because we know what nature was like in history. The only thing it contradicts is your belief that the past was the same long before anyone was here to check..

How do you know that history is valid?

Insomuch as it agrees with God, and we take it with a grain of salt, knowing it is a poor pagan record, hey, it is fine.

And what about history/archaeology that disagrees with events in the Bible (i.e. the Exodus, Noah's Flood, etc)?

Nothing does at all. Just because when God is right there leading folks, there is no mess left for us to sift through, does not mean it disagrees.

It means your expectations are flawed.

What's your criteria for distinguishing valid ideas from invalid ones?

I run them through God's checks and balances system.