Why evolution isn't scientific

[Bungle_Bear]

Did you know where adults* came from?

Children

Adam and Eve

I used to have neighbours called Adam and Eva. They had grown up in different countries and met at university.

 

[AV1611VET]

Children

No.

I used to have neighbours called Adam and Eva. They had grown up in different countries and met at university.

Are you trying to justify your answer with this factoid?

 

[AV1611VET]

so if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 instead of 12345 evolution will be false because fossil number 5 is out of place and predate its later form?

They'll just switch the numbers though.

Evolution runs on roller skates.

 

[DogmaHunter]

maybe you missed this:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801182438.htm

I didn't miss it.

But you apparantly have missed the many posts by others where it is explained how this paper doesn't mean what you claim it means.

As usual, you ignore any and all responses and just continue repeating the very same falsehoods over and over and over and...... over again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They'll just switch the numbers though.

Evolution runs on roller skates.

Can't be done.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't be done.

So these things routinely pass through Bloom's Taxonomy, Norman's Action Theory, and Shannon Entropy without any errors?

 

[46AND2]

here is one explanation:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...-eating-plant-cleaned-junk-minimalist-genome/

"On the other hand, having lots of DNA is expensive in energy terms – you need to keep a leash on it, and duplicate it all whenever cells divide"

so we can claim that these ervs were harmful and natural selection deleted them from the genome.

That's interesting and all, but no, we can't claim that. Because they would have to be deleted in a PATTERN that is left in primate genomes which is completely consistent with morphology, biodiversity, embryology, and many other matching phylogeny.

In addition, if this sort of thing occurred, we would see many examples of this happening WITHIN the primate phylogeny. Gorillas and humans would share ERVs that chimps don't have; Orangutans and chimps would share ERVs that gorillas don't have. But we never see this.

We can't claim what you think we can, because there is no precedent for it. We would have already seen it.

no problem. even according to evolution morphology doesnt necessarily need to fit with the phylogeny. the golden mole for instance is more similar to a true mole than to an elephant. but its actually closer to the elephant than to a true mole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mole

Morphology is more than superficial similarity. Just because one creature looks similar to another to the layman, doesn't mean that it is actually morphologically similar. For example, the bill of the platypus may LOOK like a duck bill. But it isn't. It is made of different material, is soft and rubber-like, and has sensory glands which help it detect food.

The golden mole fits where it is supposed to in morphological phylogeny, as well as genetic phylogeny. No exception was made by science to fit them in the nested hierarchy; it fits naturally, and observed by scientists who understand what they are actually looking at.

we can say that in human (and pig like creature) these ervs gave an advantage so natural selection keep it in the genome.

No we can't. ERVs are so highly mutated compared to the rest of the genome, it is obvious that they are ignored by natural selection.

see above. you are wrong.

No. You are wrong. So stupendously wrong, you have to grasp at straws.

 

[xianghua]

I didn't miss it.

But you apparantly have missed the many posts by others where it is explained how this paper doesn't mean what you claim it means.

As usual, you ignore any and all responses and just continue repeating the very same falsehoods over and over and over and...... over again.

you said that they didnt pushed back the creature. right?

 

[xianghua]

That's interesting and all, but no, we can't claim that. Because they would have to be deleted in a PATTERN that is left in primate genomes which is completely consistent with morphology, biodiversity, embryology, and many other matching phylogeny.

In addition, if this sort of thing occurred, we would see many examples of this happening WITHIN the primate phylogeny. Gorillas and humans would share ERVs that chimps don't have; Orangutans and chimps would share ERVs that gorillas don't have. But we never see this.

We can't claim what you think we can, because there is no precedent for it. We would have already seen it.

irrelevant. remember that we are talking about theoretical case that will falsify evolution. so as you can see- i gave such an example and explained why even such case will not be a problem for evolution.

Morphology is more than superficial similarity. Just because one creature looks similar to another to the layman, doesn't mean that it is actually morphologically similar.

are you saying that that golden mole actually has a morphology that is more similar to elephant than to a true mole? im not sure that someone did a research about this specific case (from morphological perspective)but i know about many cases where the morpholigical tree contradict the molecular one:

http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/12/...lly-conflicting-results-for-lizard-phylogeny/

https://research.amnh.org/paleontology/perissodactyl/node/55

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...gical-characters-versus-a-tree_fig7_303792194

so its clearly not true.

No we can't. ERVs are so highly mutated compared to the rest of the genome, it is obvious that they are ignored by natural selection.

actually many of ervs parts are functional:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020802075138.htm

"Once thought to be merely "junk" DNA and inactive, many of these elements, in fact, perform functions in human cells."


so this is wrong again.

 

[Kylie]

Except you're expected to think one integer gave rise to another through procreation.

I always find it very strange that even though you don't have any idea whatsoever about evolution, you somehow feel that you have the capacity to claim it is wrong.

 

[Kylie]

My father isn't a missing link.Did you know where adults* came from?

* Adam and Eve

Can you trace your family line all the way back to them?

If not, how do you know that you are descended from them?

 

[Kylie]

so if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 instead of 12345 evolution will be false because fossil number 5 is out of place and predate its previous form?

Can you show an example of this happening?

 

[46AND2]

irrelevant. remember that we are talking about theoretical case that will falsify evolution. so as you can see- i gave such an example and explained why even such case will not be a problem for evolution.




are you saying that that golden mole actually has a morphology that is more similar to elephant than to a true mole? im not sure that someone did a research about this specific case (from morphological perspective)but i know about many cases where the morpholigical tree contradict the molecular one:

http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/12/...lly-conflicting-results-for-lizard-phylogeny/

https://research.amnh.org/paleontology/perissodactyl/node/55

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...gical-characters-versus-a-tree_fig7_303792194

so its clearly not true.



actually many of ervs parts are functional:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020802075138.htm

"Once thought to be merely "junk" DNA and inactive, many of these elements, in fact, perform functions in human cells."


so this is wrong again.

Of course it's relevant. It describes why your "deleted ERVs in primates" wouldn't work. The idea that ERVs could be deleted so precisely is preposterous. For example (very simplified):

Let's say these five ERVs are found in this pattern (animals listed in hierarchical order):


Humans: ABCDE
Chimps: ABCD
Gorilla: ABC
Orangutan: AB
Gibbon: A
Hypothetical creature: ABCDE

In this scenario your "deletions" after an ancient common ancestor between human and hypothetical have occurred like this:

E is deleted in: Chimps, Gorilla, Orangutan, Gibbon
D: Gorilla, Orangutan, Gibbon
C: Orangutan, Gibbon
B: Gibbon

What we actually see is this pattern holding true for over 200,000 ERVs. We don't see a bunch of instances of say, ERV A deleted out of Orangutan and gorilla, and showing up again in Chimps and Humans.

So what you have to explain is how these deletions can happen, and leave the pattern that we ACTUALLY see.

But it gets worse for you. ERVs are there because they are FIXED in the genomes of the POPULATION. Not individuals. So, you then have to explain that if ERVs BCDE were detrimental to the Gibbons, how did they not go extinct? And it isn't just like you have to explain these 4 occurrences of this, but THOUSANDS.

But it gets EVEN WORSE: If, when you say as a hypothetical scientist, that humans and hypothetical creature shared a common ancestor, and ERVs got deleted in the other primates, take a close look at what that means:

Gibbons lost ERVs, BCD and E.

Orangutan GAINED B AGAIN.
Gorilla inherited B, and GAINED C AGAIN
Chimps inherited BC, and GAINED D AGAIN

And this is repeated THOUSANDS of times. And somehow, when they gained them back, they gained them back IN THE SAME SPOT OF THEIR GENOME that their ancestor hypothetical had it in the first place.

And it gets WORSE: we also see patterns in the mutations of the ERVs. So not only do our primate relatives have to re-acquire the lost ERVs in the same location of the genome as our human-hypothetical ancestor...they have to mutate the same way.

The odds of this are SO long--it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Therefore evolution cannot explain our hypothetical creature as you suggest--or at all for that matter.

Your deletion idea is ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So these things routinely pass through Bloom's Taxonomy, Norman's Action Theory, and Shannon Entropy without any errors?

I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[DogmaHunter]

you said that they didnt pushed back the creature. right?

Context, it matters.

There's pushing back and there's pushing back.

There's a difference between finding a fossil that shows a certain dino is a bit older then previously thought (and still well within the boundaries of the dino age) on the one hand, and finding mammals in the pre-cambrian on the other.

The first doesn't pose a problem, the second does.

And no, we never find "out of place fossils" that actually pose problems.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have no idea what you are talking about

Nobody does, including AV

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you trying to justify your answer with this factoid?

No, but since you didn't answer my question I thought it wouldn't matter if I didn't answer yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always find it very strange that even though you don't have any idea whatsoever about evolution, you somehow feel that you have the capacity to claim it is wrong.

Ditto for my 8-year-old neighbor?

Would you tell a piano virtuoso that he hit the wrong key playing Chopsticks, if he hit the wrong key playing chopsticks?

Or would you say, "I don't have the capacity to answer that, as I don't have any idea whatsoever about music theory; but it sounded wrong."

Evolution sounds wrong.

And it sounds wrong because it is wrong.

And it is wrong because, for one, it goes against the Bible.

Nuff said.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you trace your family line all the way back to them?

Dunno -- never had it tried.

If not, how do you know that you are descended from them?

My Father told me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ditto for my 8-year-old neighbor?

Would you tell a piano virtuoso that he hit the wrong key playing Chopsticks, if he hit the wrong key playing chopsticks?

Or would you say, "I don't have the capacity to answer that, as I don't have any idea whatsoever about music theory; but it sounded wrong."

Evolution sounds wrong.

And it sounds wrong because it is wrong.

And it is wrong because, for one, it goes against the Bible.

Nuff said.

Poor analogy. You only know the pianist hit a bad note because you know what chopsticks should sound like. If you don't know the tune, how do you know it sounded wrong? Remember, there may be a difference between what you might expect a tune to sound like and what it actually sounds like. There may be a deliberate discord, but you wouldn't know if you didn't know the tune.

Same goes for science - if you don't know what it should sound like, how do you know it's wrong?