Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[tas8831]

Just a reminder of the what our "researcher" omitted and ran away from:

The following is a nice progression from testing of a methodology, to application of the tested methodology to evolutionary questions. Creationist replies to this have been lacking, to say the least.


---------------------------------------------------
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."

--------------------------------​

And he keeps claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Are you familiar with Drs'. Keller, Bunge, Geissman, et al. dismantling of Baumgardner's misuse of his own program?
Miracles In, Creationism Out

No, but I am reasonably certain Dr. Baumgardner understands his software better than anyone else.

Dr. Kurt Wise explains the methodology of the TERRA model beginning at the 48:37 in this video on the "Geophysics of the Flood":

Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas. LOL! That segment on the Indian Plate begins at the 1:17:47 mark.

Dan

 

[tas8831]

If the YECs cannot discuss the coccyx and the distorted claims regarding it from other YECs, and are content to change topics, engage in the protection of a liar, etc., then I am not going to waste my time with such folks here.

 

[tas8831]

No, but I am reasonably certain Dr. Baumgardner understands his software better than anyone else.

Dr. Kurt Wise explains the methodology of the TERRA model beginning at the 48:37 in this video on the "Geophysics of the Flood":

Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas. LOL! That segment on the Indian Plate begins at the 1:17:47 mark.

Dan

More propaganda videos from the guy that cannot discuss science on his own terms.

You aren't up to the task.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, but I am reasonably certain Dr. Baumgardner understands his software better than anyone else.

Dr. Kurt Wise explains the methodology of the TERRA model beginning at the 48:37 in this video on the "Geophysics of the Flood":

Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas. LOL! That segment on the Indian Plate begins at the 1:17:47 mark.

Dan

-_- do you not understand how much force is involved in the movement of something so large, even slowly? Are you unaware that we can measure Mt. Everest's growth as it gradually gets taller?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Not really, no. Unless they happen to exhibit synapomorphies.

What are your assumptions?

LOL! Yes, well, that is in part what it is for, but it also can discern phylogenetic relationships. And in that sense, pseudogenes are useful. Since most of them are not under functional (sequence-based) constraint, they accumulate lots of mutations. And the patterns of mutations are indicative of descent. Of course, with the advent of more efficient and faster sequencing techniques, we do not have to rely on them as much, but they are still useful. But your handlers will not tell you that.

What are your assumptions?

Also, still waiting for you to explain why anyone should take your unsupported assertions about evolution over those of Todd Wood, PhD, YEC.

I know you don't want to hear this, but Todd and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to the "science" of evolution:

"In creationism, the longstanding solution to this problem has been redefinition of existing terms. Use evolution only to refer to the objectionable forms ("fish to Gish"), or bring in terms like microevolution and macroevolution to describe evolution we're OK with (the former) and evolution we object to (the latter). This gives us the advantage of precision in writing or speaking, and the whole micro/macro evolution thing allows us to introduce the idea that not all kinds of evolution are objectionable." [Todd Charles Wood, "The Nature of Evolution." Todd C. Woods Blogspot, 2019] ​

As you may have surmised, our differences like in his willingness to overlook the "bait and switch" tactics of evolutionists (such as pretending micro to be macro), while I consider that tactic to be a fraudulent misrepresentation of what works (micro) and what clearly does not (macro).

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

No, but I am reasonably certain Dr. Baumgardner understands his software better than anyone else.

Dr. Kurt Wise explains the methodology of the TERRA model beginning at the 48:37 in this video on the "Geophysics of the Flood":

Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas. LOL! That segment on the Indian Plate begins at the 1:17:47 mark.

Dan

We've already established that Dr. Wise's statements are untenable. ie, he said that there was no bioturbation in palozoic megasequences, yet we find plenty of complex burrow systems that have bioturbated subsurface lamination all throughout the geologic column. We also find offset angular unconformities right in the middle of these megasequences which he suggests formed by deposits of a single wave.

 

[Job 33:6]

-_- do you not understand how much force is involved in the movement of something so large, even slowly? Are you unaware that we can measure Mt. Everest's growth as it gradually gets taller?

We can also measure the growth of the himilayas every year as well. So, not only is it plausible that tectonic motion at a few centimeters per year can push mountains into the atmosphere, but its also easily observable.

@Bible Research Tools

"Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas."

And yet we see it happening every year, we see it happening right now. Quite funny.

 

[Brightmoon]

"Goat herders" is just part of it.

The full expression is:

"Ignorant, bronze age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads."

Ask collegians today if:

1. the Jews are God's choosen people
2. the land of Israel is the Promised Land
3. if their second diaspora ended in 1948 in fulfillment of a major prophecy
4. if Jesus was a mutant, copy error
5. where Jesus got His y-chromosome

See if you get straight answers that respect both science and the Bible at the same time.

So what part of ignorant, Bronze Age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads was wrong ?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what part of ignorant, Bronze Age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads was wrong ?

1. They were anything but ignorant. They saw and knew things scientists today will never acknowledge ever existed.

2. Bronze age is somewhat accurate, although they used brass, not bronze. In fact, you won't see the word "bronze" in the Bible anywhere.

3. Desert dwelling is because they were being punished. And referring to them as "desert dwellers" is as rude as calling someone who went to jail a "jail bird." And seeing as they were only in the desert for 40 years ... well ... 'nuff said.

4. Goat herding is just beyond my comprehension. I know they bred goats for their sacerdotal duties, but that was about it. Calling them "goat herders" would be like calling a secretary a "pencil pusher."

5. Nomads is just plain ridicule.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And yet God, Jesus, bible, Christianity is not mentioned ONCE in the governing document of this nation. Quite an oversight, no?

There was no oversight. The framers of the Constitution simply removed all redundancy. Since virtually everyone was a Christian in those days, only the more important things were mentioned, such as:

1) No legisative work on Sundays (Article I, Sect 7). If that was intended for muslims it would have read "Fridays excepted", and for Jews, "Saturdays excepted".

2) Who is "our Lord" in this closing statement?

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

The best way to determine the name of the Lord in that statement would be to count back 1787 years from the date of 1787 A.D..

3) The First Amendment was framed to protect Christian sects/denominations from being subject to the suppression of a recognized Federal sect or denomination. It was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written primarily by George Mason, that stated:

"XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."​

[Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason]​

Source: Avalon Project - Virginia Declaration of Rights​

Like I said in earlier posts, this nation was a Christian nation until the Supreme Court, at the instigation of the anti-Christian, anti-American ACLU, usurped that power from the states and the people and claimed it for the federal government in order for the federal government to do with as it pleased.

Oh - Menton lied, no YECs touched the coccyx, phylogenetics works, creationism is a sham.

Macroevolution is a scam, old-earthism is a sham, and the recognition by the federal government of the religion of evolutionism as the established religion of the state is a clear and tyrannical violation of the First Amendment, as well as a corruption of the underlying principles and intent of the constitution.

Almost forgot. The claims of the existence of vestigial organs is based on pseudoscience, as is the silly notion that the Tiktaalik is anything other than an extinct fish.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Your inane denialism is getting tiresome.
Shallow grasps of technical scientific issues is not a reason to abandon them for silly ancient middle eastern tales.

Perhaps you should come up with more reasonable (e.g., more scientific) arguments. Simply saying something is so is not science, but another just-so story.

I will make it easy for you. Show us indisputable evidence for macroevolution, and for an old earth, and I will never question them again.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And all you are capable of producing is unsupported, condescending assertions. Typical for under-informed brainwashed religionists.

You could get away with those lame-brain claims of "vestigial organs" a few decades ago; but science has caught up with you.

Dan

 

[PsychoSarah]

You could get away with those lame-brain claims of "vestigial organs" a few decades ago; but science has caught up with you.

Dan

Explain to me the function of the palmaris longus muscles and how they are so important despite 14% of the human population missing one or both of them and most of that group not even being aware of it?

By the way, it almost feels like you are ignoring my posts.

Also, why does the emu have arms with no muscle attachments that they can't even move and can only be seen on adults if you look really closely? Please, explain to me what possible function those arms have.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is a prime example of just how this conversation has gone, time and time again.

@Bible Research Tools "Dr. Wise laughs at the old-earther notion that the momentum created by Indian plate moving at a "whopping" 10 cm/year could push up the Himalayas."

Highest Mountain | Everest

Mount Everest is so famous for being so high that you've probably heard of it before. It has been known the world over since the early 1950s when Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay first climbed to its awesome summit. Hillary surveyed Everest at the time and determined that it was 29,000 ft/8840m high - a figure amazingly close to the current reading of 29,035 ft/8850m, which was confirmed using radar and global positioning satellite (GPS) technology.




See a satellite view from the summit of Everest

Using state-of-the-art technology Professor Brad Washburn of the Boston Museum of Science, the world's foremost mountain cartographer, and his team have calculated that earth's highest elevation is actually 7 feet higher than the previous record. That makes the official height 29,035 ft/8850m. Thanks to some engineering whizzes at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who developed really light, high-tech gear, the work of Washburn was made easier because he was able to hand carry a radar device to the top of Everest where it could be positioned to measure the actual height of the mountain - underneath all that snow. GPS technology was also deployed near the summit, which uses satellite signal relays to take readings from the top of Everest. After months of crunching numbers Washburn's team arrived at the new, official world-record elevation.

They've also determined that the Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year. That's twice as fast as previously thought.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This idea that the himilayas are being pushed up by tectonic motion is so funny. So funny that we can see it happening right before our eyes.

But young earthers just dont get it...

 

[Speedwell]

1. They were anything but ignorant. They saw and knew things scientists today will never acknowledge ever existed.

2. Bronze age is somewhat accurate, although they used brass, not bronze. In fact, you won't see the word "bronze" in the Bible anywhere.

Gen 4:22

3. Desert dwelling is because they were being punished. And referring to them as "desert dwellers" is as rude as calling someone who went to jail a "jail bird." And seeing as they were only in the desert for 40 years ... well ... 'nuff said.

Never been to Israel, I see.

4. Goat herding is just beyond my comprehension. I know they bred goats for their sacerdotal duties, but that was about it. Calling them "goat herders" would be like calling a secretary a "pencil pusher."

That one misses the mark a bit, I'll admit. "Sheep herders" would be more accurate, with goats as a sideline.

5. Nomads is just plain ridicule.

You think Nomads are ridiculous?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

? Please rephrase.

Sure. I'm being a little facetious in that Creation Scientists don't really do the two together. That is, they're either Creationist Apologists with a science degree (i.e. don't do science, but whine on about how everyone else's well-established Science is wrong), or they're Scientists by day and Creationists by night - in that they compartmentalise the two.

I was responding to your statement.

Of course - well, one would hope if you replied to what I wrote, right? The point was, "Creation Scientists" (if that's what you want to call Henry Morris... given he was largely behind the oxymoronic term anyway), who don't contribute legitimate scientific research are led firstly by the Bible in that "It is the literal and inerrant Truth" before even looking at evidence - which is entirely "Anti"-Scientific. The process employed by university educated persons embarking in a career of pseudo-scientific apologetics goes completely against what science and the scientific method entail. In Morris' case, he buys entirely into the "Curse of Ham" rubbish, which of course is a disgustingly racist and bigoted position besides the fact that there's no scientific foundation to support the idea in the first place.

Science indicates that not only do all humans share a common ancestor, but we also share common ancestors with pretty much all life on this planet. The mountains of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution is entirely too much for any rational person to ignore.

A lot of very cruel people also believed Darwin "had a point".

Just as both very cruel AND very nice people alike believe in, and act on the nonsense bigotry of the bible too. Your point?

Dr. Purdom is right on the money about our genetic heritage, and it is not based on that silly notion of "common descent".

No, she isn't. I'll throw down the gauntlet on this, Show us her peer reviewed research, and let's discuss it.

Probably not, or they would not have acted so treacherously. Or, perhaps they did and were too proud or too covetous to change their evil ways.

So, I take it by your admission above that you rescind your postulation thus? :

God does not wish that any should perish.

...because surely, your God could easily warm their hearts just as easily as he could harden their hearts? Is God too lazy to spare even the babies who have no awareness of their "treachery, pride and covetous crimes" that apparently so necessitated their grizzly deaths?

It is good to see you take the Bible literally, or at least the parts that support your cause.

Not even in the slightest. I'm concerned though, that people like you do - and often, the only way to get through to some is by using their "literal and inerrant Truth" to bridge that barrier.

 

[pitabread]

This idea that the himilayas are being pushed up by tectonic motion is so funny. So funny that we can see it happening right before our eyes.

But young earthers just dont get it...

Young Earthers have to deny a ridiculous amount of science to hold on to their beliefs.

I just can't imagine why anyone would want to lead a life of such willful ignorance though. The mental gymnastics required to maintain that state must be downright painful at times.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No creationist has ever provided supporting evidence showing that the word of God IS the word of God, much less that it is based in reality.

That is the kind of blasphemy one might hear from a follower of loony Aron Ra; but not on a Christian Forum.

For none of which have religionists provided evidence.

You seem unusually bigoted toward Christians and the Word of God, and especially toward those who follow a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Seeing as how you have yet to provide anything or merit or worth in this thread on any topic, and have provided only condescension, empty, unsupported assertions, and hero worship, your claims are to be laughed at.

Do you project much? I was originally posting on an eschatology board, I joined these threads because of what appeared to be rampant condescension by "morally-superior" evolutionists against creationists, not to mention the hero worship of the prophet of evolutionism, Charlie Darwin.

Ever read any Saul Alinski?

Wood may have had you in mind when he wrote:

I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution....Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. ​

Like I said, he does say some really dumb things. I posted another statement on this thread by him you may already be aware of:

Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post​

You know - your hero Kurt Wise says much the same thing as Todd regarding why he is a creationist:

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."​

Kurt Wise doesn't believe there is evidence for common descent, like Wood. In my earlier reply, Wood was quoted as saying:

"Use evolution only to refer to the objectionable forms ("fish to Gish"), or bring in terms like microevolution and macroevolution to describe evolution we're OK with (the former) and evolution we object to (the latter)." ​

A little convoluted, but you get the picture. Three paragraphs later, he writes:

"In the case of "evidence for evolution," I meant evolution in the standard, conventional sense. There are observations of allele frequency changes in populations (Darwin's finches, for example), evidence of speciation (as explained in Darwin's geography chapters in Origin and elsewhere), and there is evidence for universal common ancestry (genetic code, protein homology, core metabolism, etc.). For some of that evidence, I'm content to accept the evolutionary interpretation. For other evidence (particularly of universal common ancestry), I think there is another explanation."​

Source: The Nature of Evolution​

Now all Tood has to do is explain how there can be evidence of universal common ancestry without macroevolution, how that fits into the Genesis creation narrative, and how his doctrine can be reconciled with the doctrines of Christ (Mat 19:4; Mar 10:6) and Paul (1 Tim 2:13).

Weird - haven't you blabbered about how we don't follow the scientific method?

I don't recall. But now that you mention it, I haven't seen any real evidence of it.

Still waiting for you to provide the Scriptural source regarding:

"Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters..."

Please show me where in the bible the "genetic character" of 'Negroes' is discussed.

I asked you for the context of that quote, and you ignored my request.

Also still waiting for you to defend your other YEC hero Menton re:

"...the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

Which means that Menton is unaware that many terrestrial vertebrates, to include some of the largest, lack this feature.

What is with all this misdirection? You seem desperate to avoid the serious questions about the validity of evolution.

This is the article in question:

Gone Fishin’ for a Missing Link? (A Preliminary Response)​

But if your defense is on par with the other one, well, never mind.

Will you ever get around to providing any proof of macroevolution?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Why should we assume that?

Why not? You have no concrete proof rocks are older than 7500 years, do you? Try it with the young earth estimates and you will see how "accurate" radiometric dating really is. LOL!

Dan