Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

Curious as to why you NEVER present evidence FOR creation/ID?

i already did it many times in this forum:

(image from https://microbeonline.com/bacterial...ortance-and-examples-of-flagellated-bacteria/)

or this one:

(image from Flagella and Cilia: Structure and Functions (With Diagram))

or this one:

(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: ATP Synthase: Advanced Look: Synthesis)

or this:

(image from June Newsletter: Kinesin Motor Proteins and Neurodegeneration)

 

[46AND2]

are you saying that ervs cant be deleted from the genome?

Not in the manner and precision with which you claim, no. Utterly impossible.

 

[xianghua]

Not in the manner and precision with which you claim, no. Utterly impossible.

why its impossible? can you give a calculation please? lets check this claim.

 

[46AND2]

why its impossible? can you give a calculation please? lets check this claim.

It's your claim (that we can just say ERVs are deleted in all primates, except humans). You calculate it. Do you even know where to begin?

 

[xianghua]

It's your claim (that we can just say ERVs are deleted in all primates, except humans). You calculate it. Do you even know where to begin?

you are the one who said that its impossible. so can you show me a calculation or not?

 

[46AND2]

you are the one who said that its impossible. so can you show me a calculation or not?

Of course I can. But you were the one who made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. And your claim makes it exceedingly obvious that you have absolutely no idea how the evidence of ERVs works. Your claim is so wrong it's SILLY. It's as silly as saying a square doesn't have four sides because this trapezoid here has 4 sides and clearly isn't a square. Seriously, THAT silly.

 

[46AND2]

you are the one who said that its impossible. so can you show me a calculation or not?

I'll give you a starting point, though...Humans and chimps share over 200,000 ERVs, and only differ in about 300. That's about 99.85% shared. Ready? Go.

 

[pitabread]

answer my question please: if we can push back a creature by 15my, can we push it back by 20my? yes or not?

It depends.

Now read the article again: when did it say sauropods evolved?

 

[pitabread]

are you speaking about this specific case or about out of place fossil in general? what is your definition for "out of place fossil"?

An out of place fossil would be a fossil which completely contradicts the evolutionary history of that particular species.

A human fossil found 65 million years ago would be an out-of-place fossil. This is because it would predate all of the mammalian and primate evolution required to get to humans.

On the other hand, the fossils in the article you linked (neosauropod) don't contradict evolutionary time frames, since sauropods evolved at least 200 million years ago. So finding a sauropod descendant that is 174 million years old fits perfectly fine within the timeline of sauropod evolution.

Now, what I want you to do is repeat back what I wrote based on your own understanding of it. Do you understand what I wrote? Do you understand why these two scenarios are different? Don't ask any more questions yet, just indicate your understanding of what has been written so far.

 

[John Bowen]

E=mc2 matter = energy what appears solid is really just atoms .Quantum physics proves that the photon's behavior isn't predetermined , but depends on the scientist conducting the experiment for the outcome.Now combine that with string theory that says everything is interconnected . You get that that nothing just evolves on its own .Exactly what Jesus told us 2000 yrs ago the kingdom of God is within you its a state of mind consciousness. Jesus's so called miracles where because he knew that matter can be changed. A computers hardware doesn't run the computer its software does and that can be updated to change what the computer can do .Just like human consciousness raises all life or can take all life down . I just giving my views take it or leave it .Don't attack people because you are showing your consciousness when you do.

 

[sfs]

Quantum physics proves that the photon's behavior isn't predetermined , but depends on the scientist conducting the experiment for the outcome.

Quantum physics doesn't say that.

Now combine that with string theory that says everything is interconnected .

Where does string theory say that? And when was it shown that string theory has anything to do with reality?

Exactly what Jesus told us 2000 yrs ago the kingdom of God is within you its a state of mind consciousness.

Neither QM nor string theory say anything at all about consciousness.

 

[xianghua]

I'll give you a starting point, though...Humans and chimps share over 200,000 ERVs, and only differ in about 300. That's about 99.85% shared. Ready? Go.

how this fact has any connetion to the claim that its impossible for ervs to be deleted from a genome? Ready? go.

 

[xianghua]

On the other hand, the fossils in the article you linked (neosauropod) don't contradict evolutionary time frames, since sauropods evolved at least 200 million years ago. So finding a sauropod descendant that is 174 million years old fits perfectly fine within the timeline of sauropod evolution.

great. so if this fossil was about 205 my old evolution were false because its predate the group? but we can just push back the group itself. no problem for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

I didn't say it's impossible for ERVs to be deleted from a genome. Do try to follow along.

so you only talking about the amount of ervs that need to be deleted from the genome? ok. so where do you put the limit of deletions number? 10 deletions? 100? 200? if you cant give a number then you cant claim that its impossible. we know for instance that many genes were deleted from the genome of many species. so evolution can explain many deletions without any problem.

 

[pitabread]

great. so if this fossil was about 205 my old evolution were false because its predate the group? but we can just push back the group itself. no problem for evolution.

Do you understand the idea of approximate numbers? Do you understand what a margin of error is?

You need to realize that 200 million year ago number for sauropod evolution isn't an exact number; it's approximate. In fact, I was looking at another article on it in which scientists doing phylogenetic reconstruction of sauropods indicate the group may be as old as 230 million years ago. And neosauropods being approximately 165 million years old.

You need to understand is that the reconstruction of evolutionary history of different species is dependent on the available data for a particular lineage. Whether a fossil is "out of place" or not entirely depends on the construction of that lineage and the time frames in question.

This is why there is no singular time frame for which a particular fossil may or may not be "out of order".

Now, do you understand what I am saying in the above text? Please repeat it back based on your understanding of what I just wrote.

 

[xianghua]

*sigh*

I can see why you keep having these conversations over and over. You appear to making no effort whatsoever to understand.

but you said that : "since sauropods evolved at least 200 million years ago. So finding a sauropod descendant that is 174 million years old fits perfectly fine within the timeline of sauropod evolution"

so if this fossil were found in a 205 my old layer it will contradict the time frame of this group since its predate the entire group. so what is the problem with what i said?

 

[46AND2]

so you only talking about the amount of ervs that need to be deleted from the genome? ok. so where do you put the limit of deletions number? 10 deletions? 100? 200? if you cant give a number then you cant claim that its impossible. we know for instance that many genes were deleted from the genome of many species. so evolution can explain many deletions without any problem.

Take a pig-like creature, for example. Let's say we discovered a pig-like creature with whom we share more ERVs than we do with any ape, including chimps.

Let's say you are a scientist, and your job is to "explain away" this apparent contradiction. You will need to explain the following:

1. What mechanism caused us to share all these ERVs with the pig-like creature? The odds of sharing (and by sharing, I mean they are found in the same location of the genome) even 1 ERV is about 1 in a few million. Sharing 200,000+? Astronomical.

2. You will need to explain how every ERV that we share with this pig-like creature, but don't ALSO share with primates, got systematically deleted in every species of primate on the planet, yet still somehow left just the right amount of shared ERVs to show the pattern that we see between humans and primates (i.e. we share most with chimp, a little fewer with gorilla, fewer still with orangutan, etc.).

Further, let's say species started popping up all over the place with the same conundrum, so that our pig-like creature is not just some unique misfit. How would evolution explain that? Answer: it couldn't.

 

[pitabread]

but you said that : "since sauropods evolved at least 200 million years ago. So finding a sauropod descendant that is 174 million years old fits perfectly fine within the timeline of sauropod evolution"

so if this fossil were found in a 205 my old layer it will contradict the time frame of this group since its predate the entire group. so what is the problem with what i said?

I edited my above post for a better reply. Here it is again:


Do you understand the idea of approximate numbers? Do you understand what "at least 200 million years" ago means? The "at least" means they aren't younger than 200 million years, but they may be a bit older.

In fact, I was looking at another article on it in which scientists doing phylogenetic reconstruction of sauropods indicate the sauropod group may be as old as 230 million years. And they put neosauropods being approximately 165 million years old.

You need to understand is that the reconstruction of evolutionary history of different species is dependent on the available data for a particular lineage. Whether a fossil is "out of place" or not entirely depends on the construction of that lineage and the time frames in question. And a lot of times those time frames are approximate.

This is why there is no singular time frame for which a particular fossil may or may not be "out of order".

Now, do you understand what I am saying in the above text? Please repeat it back based on your understanding of what I just wrote.

 

[xianghua]

I edited my above post for a better reply. Here it is again:


Do you understand the idea of approximate numbers? Do you understand what "at least 200 million years" ago means? The "at least" means they aren't younger than 200 million years, but they may be a bit older.

In fact, I was looking at another article on it in which scientists doing phylogenetic reconstruction of sauropods indicate the sauropod group may be as old as 230 million years. And they put neosauropods being approximately 165 million years old.

You need to understand is that the reconstruction of evolutionary history of different species is dependent on the available data for a particular lineage. Whether a fossil is "out of place" or not entirely depends on the construction of that lineage and the time frames in question. And a lot of times those time frames are approximate.

This is why there is no singular time frame for which a particular fossil may or may not be "out of order".

if so we can say the same for human with a dino. we can just push back primates, just like we can push back this group of dinos. where do you see a problem here?

Now, do you understand what I am saying in the above text? Please repeat it back based on your understanding of what I just wrote.

yes. i understand. see above.

 

[pitabread]

if so we can say the same for human with a dino. we can just push back primates, just like we can push back this group of dinos. where do you see a problem here?

No, it's not the same at all. When did the great apes evolve? And what did great apes evolve from? When did primates evolve? And what did primates evolve from?

yes. i understand. see above.

I'm not sure that you do. Please, repeat back what I wrote basted on your understanding of it.