Tiktaalik vs. Bacterial Flagellum

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You're going to have to make your own case.

Why the evasion? Trying to leave yourself an out in case I have something?

A standard paternity test shows that a man is the father of a child to a very high degree of certainty, but not 100%. (in the case of the father being an identical twin, a more in depth full genome study is required with samples from the mother needed as well, but the results are still a very high degree of certainty).

I simply want to know if these tests constitute "proof" to you?

If yes, why do you require even more proof than that for evolution?

If no, let's say you, or somebody you know, got a surprise positive paternity test. Would you deny it?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,442
2,801
Hartford, Connecticut
✟296,378.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why the evasion? Trying to leave yourself an out in case I have something?

A standard paternity test shows that a man is the father of a child to a very high degree of certainty, but not 100%. (in the case of the father being an identical twin, a more in depth full genome study is required with samples from the mother needed as well, but the results are still a very high degree of certainty).

I simply want to know if these tests constitute "proof" to you?

If no, why do you require even more proof than that for evolution? If you, or somebody you know, got a surprise positive paternity test, would you deny it?

But of course paternity tests are all false. It's just pure chance that the father could be identified out of billions of other men through DNA analysis. Everyone knows that there is no link between DNA and phylogeny. Hah get it? "No link". Yes, I win.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟675,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Post #13

Tiktaalik is good evidence for common descent in that it was predicted to exist in shallow marine mid devonian rock, dated older than fish dominated rocks such as in the early devonian but younger than reptile dominated rocks such as in the Carboniferous. It's prescense in rock of shallow marine origins also lends credence to the idea that fish would evolve to walk on land in areas in which water is shallow and where this water meets land. Indeed the neighboring terrestrial mid devonian rocks did not contain tiktaalik like species, nor did the deep marine rock to the east. Only the shallow marine of what the geology shows was a continental margin.

And of course anyone can look at images of tiktaalik to see it has scales, gills and fins like a fish, while it also has a flat head and unfused neck much like an amophibious salamander. It also has robust pectoral girdles much like a salamander, and wrist bones like a salamander as well. And yet...clearly it's a fish with fins and scales. So it has features of both fish and amphibian tetrapodomorph, and it's been found in rock where it was predicted to be, specially up in the Canadian arctic, as well as vertically, lithologically and superpositionally in shallow marine rock.

And there have been other shallow marine tetrapodomorph tracks also found in the early devonian as well in Poland. Between the two, along with a whole collection of Hybrid fossils, this lends credence to the suggestion that the Cambrian, ordovician and silurian were dominated by marine fauna, and sometime in the early to mid devonian they evolved to walk on land. Then by the late devonian we have domination of strata by tetrapods and salamander like fauna. Then by the Carboniferous you have reptile like amphibians and amphibian like reptiles, lizard salamander hybrids etc.


If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian.

@inquiring mind 's response? "shaky and weak biological evidence at best, with no fossil record to support it."

Lol.
As if strange creatures over eons couldn’t pose the appearance of a conundrum??? Look, I’m not trying to disprove evolution altogether... in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
53
✟250,687.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As if strange creatures over eons couldn’t pose the appearance of a conundrum??? Look, I’m not trying to disprove evolution altogether... in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word.

Your belief doesnt change facts.

There are a mountain of facts supporting the ToE and none to falsify it.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟675,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why the evasion? Trying to leave yourself an out in case I have something?

A standard paternity test shows that a man is the father of a child to a very high degree of certainty, but not 100%. (in the case of the father being an identical twin, a more in depth full genome study is required with samples from the mother needed as well, but the results are still a very high degree of certainty).

I simply want to know if these tests constitute "proof" to you?

If yes, why do you require even more proof than that for evolution?

If no, let's say you, or somebody you know, got a surprise positive paternity test. Would you deny it?
You're evading my question,"How would DNA prove with certainty, either creation or evolution?" You're off point.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You're evading my question,"How would DNA prove with certainty, either creation or evolution?" You're off point.
Nobody is evading your question; it just doesn't have any meaning with respect to how science works. Science is based on inductive logic. The conclusions of inductive logic are never "proved with certainty." Only the conclusions of deductive logic are "proved with certainty."
 
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You're evading my question,"How would DNA prove with certainty, either creation or evolution?" You're off point.

I'm not evading, I have every intention of answering your question....you won't even tell me what you mean by "certainty."

Are paternity tests "certain" by your account?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Why the evasion? Trying to leave yourself an out in case I have something?

A standard paternity test shows that a man is the father of a child to a very high degree of certainty, but not 100%. (in the case of the father being an identical twin, a more in depth full genome study is required with samples from the mother needed as well, but the results are still a very high degree of certainty).

I simply want to know if these tests constitute "proof" to you?

If yes, why do you require even more proof than that for evolution?

If no, let's say you, or somebody you know, got a surprise positive paternity test. Would you deny it?

And how is this paternity test done? Do they cut the child genome up into pieces and then use an algorithm to randomly match any part of that genome to any random part of the suspected parent genome using BLAST?

No they do not. So why would I accept your claims of similarity when you refuse to test between things the way you actually test for similarity and know to be the correct way?????

Because it wouldn't show hardly any similarity at all using correct procedures????

We are not debating the correctness of paternity tests, but your trying to make one seem also correct and the same as the other when the tests have nothing in common at all....

So would you agree that we could use a BLAST algorithm and randomly compare any part of a child's genome to any random part of the suspected parents genome and get valid results????

After all, 100% certainty would not be required "A standard paternity test shows that a man is the father of a child to a very high degree of certainty, but not 100%". I say ANY person tested would conform within the range of acceptability using this method, parent or not....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
And how is this paternity test done? Do they cut the child genome up into pieces and then use an algorithm to randomly match any part of that genome to any random part of the suspected parent genome using BLAST?

No they do not. So why would I accept your claims of similarity when you refuse to test between things the way you actually test for similarity and know to be the correct way?????

Because it wouldn't show hardly any similarity at all using correct procedures????

We are not debating the correctness of paternity tests, but your trying to make one seem also correct and the same as the other when the tests have nothing in common at all....

I haven't made any comparison at all.

I want to know what you guys are asking for when you ask for "proof."

Do paternity tests suffice, yes or no?

It's a simple question.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

46AND2

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
Sep 5, 2012
5,807
2,210
Vancouver, WA
✟102,103.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I say ANY person tested would conform within the range of acceptability using this method, parent or not....

lol. Perhaps the most severe case of grasping at straws I've seen on this site, and that says something.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
As if strange creatures over eons couldn’t pose the appearance of a conundrum??? Look, I’m not trying to disprove evolution altogether... in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word.
What matters from a scientific standpoint is that at the present time there is no evidence against the theory of evolution. The evidence for it does not need to be complete or prove it with certainty.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,799.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I could have sworn I addressed 'cut & paste' site links with a suggestion to visit rebuttal sites.

LOL

That's your response? "Visit AIG!"

You have no clue how to respond to USincognito's evidence, I bet you haven't got a clue what he's even talking about.

1. Shared ERVs that form a nested hierarchy the further you move back up the evolutionary tree.
2. Shared pseudogenes like GULO in Haplorhines, Shh/Hand2 in cetaceans and VTG in placental and marsupial mammals.

Yet you feel qualified to tell us that there is no convincing evidence for evolution?

What a joke.

Now run along and search for "pseudogenes" and "shared ERVs" on some apologetics website and at least try to pretend that you know what you're attempting to discuss.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I haven't made any comparison at all.

I want to know what you guys are asking for when you ask for "proof."

Do paternity tests suffice, yes or no?

It's a simple question.
Sure, run a paternity test on an chimp and human, let me know the results.....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
lol. Perhaps the most severe case of grasping at straws I've seen on this site, and that says something.
Well run your BLAST routine between humans and see what you get, Run your paternity test between chimps and humans, let me know what you get.

Grasping at straws is ignoring that the test we use to determine relation is never used between chimps and humans, but trying to pretend that isn't important..... Instead randomly comparing any part of a genome with any other random part.... That is what grasping at straws means....

I simply ask you to run the test you know is accurate in confirming relationships, which is not the one you run to claim similarity between chimps and apes. Nor is the one you run between chimps and apes, the one they would ever dream of using to determine relationship or parentage... It is you that is grasping at straws, because you know you are on a doomed course.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟150,895.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
As you can see, my belief is referred to as magic and other imageries quite often. And, perhaps you choose to neglect the fact that I'm the one, having tried anyway, to pose a topic for discussion.

Because it is indistinguishable from magic.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
LOL

That's your response? "Visit AIG!"

You have no clue how to respond to USincognito's evidence, I bet you haven't got a clue what he's even talking about.

1. Shared ERVs that form a nested hierarchy the further you move back up the evolutionary tree.
2. Shared pseudogenes like GULO in Haplorhines, Shh/Hand2 in cetaceans and VTG in placental and marsupial mammals.

Yet you feel qualified to tell us that there is no convincing evidence for evolution?

What a joke.

Now run along and search for "pseudogenes" and "shared ERVs" on some apologetics website and at least try to pretend that you know what you're attempting to discuss.
Stop with the pseudoscience already.

We use virus for genetic alteration precisely because they have developed infiltration tactics to target specific cells. it doesn't prove shared ancestry, it simply proves that virus target similar cells they have designed attack routines for.

Should I run a search for pseudoscience while I am running one for pseudogenes????
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums