Evolution conflict and division

River Jordan · 2025-10-13T13:00:20-0500

o_mlly said:
Are you now asserting that shared DNA's is no longer sufficient evidence for a common ancestor?

By itself with no other context (as Tour presented it), no.

o_mlly said:
If so, is your claim that because Dr. Tour is only partially correct in his claim, that he is, therefore, incredible?

He is either ignorant of, or deliberately omitting the key context that I've posted about, both of which erode his credibility on the subject. Since he's a chemist and not a biologist, evolutionary biologist, or geneticist that's not exactly a surprise.

o_mlly said:
Therefore, you abandon the common ancestor claim that humans evolved from any other kind of living creature that lacks specific genetic sequences in common?

The "specific genetic sequences in common" have been one of my main points since the start. To repeat for the third time, it's not that they're merely similar, it's that they're similar in very specific ways (for example share genetic errors).

o_mlly said:
Or at least admit the evidence for that claim is on the lowest confidence level possible for scientific claims, ie., consensus among biased "experts"?

That's a complete non sequitur.

o_mlly · 2025-10-13T13:51:01-0500

River Jordan said:
By itself with no other context (as Tour presented it), no.

?

River Jordan said:
Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms.

Can you square your apparent contradiction?

River Jordan said:
The "specific genetic sequences in common" have been one of my main points since the start.

I understand. So, therefore organisms that do not share "specific genetic sequences in common" is evidence that they do not share a common ancestor.

River Jordan said:
That's a complete non sequitur.

No, it's not. Are you aware of the criteria for determining the level of confidence in evidence that support scientific claims?

Repeatable experiments.
Directly measurable.
Prospective study.
Avoid bias.
Avoid assumptions.
Make reasonable claims.

Evolution theory, on the other hand makes claims that:

Can’t be repeated
Nobody witnessed the actual event.
Retrospective study
Clear opportunities for bias.
Many assumptions are required.
Overstated claims.

Overstated claims? Here's a high school biology textbook's overstated claim: “For example, organisms as dissimilar as humans and bacteria share genes inherited for a a very distant common ancestor.” (Campbell Biology, 9th Ed. P. 463.)

River Jordan said:
He is either ignorant of, or deliberately omitting the key context that I've posted about, both of which erode his credibility on the subject. Since he's a chemist and not a biologist, evolutionary biologist, or geneticist that's not exactly a surprise.

Those personal (ad hominem) attacks, ie., the poster is ignorant, or the poster is unfair -- are typical from evolution believer when presented with evidence of rationales that attack their biased claims.

River Jordan · 2025-10-13T14:31:41-0500

o_mlly said:
Can you square your apparent contradiction?

It's a fairly simple concept. Sequence similarity forms a nested hierarchy, where our genome is most similar to chimps, a bit less similar to gorillas, a bit less similar to monkeys, even less similar to mice, even less similar to reptiles, even less similar to trees, and so on.

Another term for a nested hierarchy is "family tree".

o_mlly said:
I understand. So, therefore organisms that do not share "specific genetic sequences in common" is evidence that they do not share a common ancestor.

If you have examples of such, post them and we can go from there.

o_mlly said:
No, it's not. Are you aware of the criteria for determining the level of confidence in evidence that support scientific claims?

Repeatable experiments.

Directly measurable.

Prospective study.

Avoid bias.

Avoid assumptions.

Make reasonable claims.

Evolution theory, on the other hand makes claims that:

Can’t be repeated

Nobody witnessed the actual event.

Retrospective study

Clear opportunities for bias.

Many assumptions are required.

Overstated claims.

As I posted to Platte earlier, I honestly don't care if you don't think evolutionary theory is valid science. It makes no difference to me or any other scientist. You're certainly welcome to your opinions.

My primary interest here is to stick up for my co-workers and colleagues. We're not stupid nor are we involved in a shadowy conspiracy.

o_mlly said:
Overstated claims? Here's a high school biology textbook's overstated claim: “For example, organisms as dissimilar as humans and bacteria share genes inherited for a a very distant common ancestor.” (Campbell Biology, 9th Ed. P. 463.)

I understand you don't believe in common ancestry. You're welcome to that opinion.

o_mlly said:
Those personal (ad hominem) attacks, ie., the poster is ignorant, or the poster is unfair -- are typical from evolution believer when presented with evidence of rationales that attack their biased claims.

You presented a video of Dr. Tour where he didn't accurately describe an aspect of evolutionary theory. The only two explanations that I can think of is either intentional omission or ignorance. Do you have another?

o_mlly · 2025-10-13T15:06:12-0500

River Jordan said:
Sequence similarity forms a nested hierarchy, where our genome is most similar to chimps, a bit less similar to gorillas, a bit less similar to monkeys, even less similar to mice, even less similar to reptiles, even less similar to trees, and so on.

So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.

River Jordan said:
If you have examples of such, post them and we can go from there.

That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.

River Jordan said:
I honestly don't care if you don't think evolutionary theory is valid science. It makes no difference to me or any other scientist. You're certainly welcome to your opinions.

It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.

And you are welcome to your opinions, but not your facts.

River Jordan said:
My primary interest here is to stick up for my co-workers and colleagues

Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.

River Jordan said:
I understand you don't believe in common ancestry. You're welcome to that opinion.

And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion. And remember, belief is a matter of faith, not science.

River Jordan said:
You presented a video of Dr. Tour where he didn't accurately describe an aspect of evolutionary theory. The only two explanations that I can think of is either intentional omission or ignorance. Do you have another?

Yes. Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-13T15:14:35-0500

o_mlly said:
So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.

That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.

It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.

And you are welcome to your opinions, but not your facts.

Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.

And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion. And remember, belief is a matter of faith, not science.

Yes. Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.

One of the key terms noted above is "nested hierarchies". That's where the evidence is. It's the subject that James Tour has no response for. This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in.

sfs · 2025-10-13T15:29:10-0500

Platte said:
Show me the best evidence for macro evolution.

No, let's first deal with the claim you made: "Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it." That's a positive claim, and for you to make it implies that you're familiar with possible evidence for macroevolution and have reasons to reject it. Are you? What was your grounds for making that statement?

River Jordan · 2025-10-13T15:33:03-0500

o_mlly said:
So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.

This sentence doesn't make sense.

o_mlly said:
That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.

Yes we do. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evolutionary biologists and geneticists aren't stupid.

o_mlly said:
It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.

Dr. Tour is a chemist who doesn't present his arguments about evolution in biology, evolutionary biology, or genetics arenas. He is doing nothing more than expressing his personal opinions in YT videos and at church groups.

o_mlly said:
Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.

I'm not here to make a scientific case for evolution or common ancestry. This is not the proper venue for that; it's a religious forum.

o_mlly said:
And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion.

And the shared conclusion of effectively all relevant scientists, scientific organizations, university science programs, biotech firms, etc.

o_mlly said:
Yes.

And what is your explanation for why Dr. Tour inaccurately described the subject?

o_mlly said:
Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.

See above. If you want to debate science I suggest you seek out an actual science forum and not try and do so in a specifically religious forum.

Platte · 2025-10-13T16:22:50-0500

sfs said:
No, let's first deal with the claim you made: "Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it." That's a positive claim, and for you to make it implies that you're familiar with possible evidence for macroevolution and have reasons to reject it. Are you? What was your grounds for making that statement?

My point would be there is an unreasonable jump from any evidence to a Macro evolution conclusion

Aaron112 · 2025-10-13T16:34:24-0500

There's no facts, no true evidence, no plan nor purpose (other than greed, pride and rebellion against God) to try to say humans evolved at all, let alone anything more than that.
fwiw, so-called 'genetic' problems were made up and blown up into a mountain on false testimony by drug lords to try to hide the damage daily caused by immunizations and other drugs. Don't tell the truth - claim it is genetic..... and so they go on.

o_mlly · 2025-10-14T07:07:12-0500

Job 33:6 said:
This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

Really? These are the usual charges made by evos who have no real evidence: attack the messenger with ad hominems-- You're ignorant or dishonest.

James Tour biography, evolution, nobel prize, awards, rice university, nanotechnology, net worth • biography

James Tour biography, evolution, nobel prize, awards, rice university, nanotechnology, net worth | The nanotechnology specialist James M Tour was born on 1959 in the New York City Dr Tour completed his Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Syracuse University

bijog.com

For Tour's contribution to science, he has received many awards. He was ranked among the 10 best chemist in the past decade in 2009. In 2008, he was awarded by Nasa Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers. In 2006, he received the Southern Chemist of the year from the American Chemical Society.The scientist has received many national and international awards for his contribution.

Job 33:6 said:
And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in.

Many don't care what evos personally believe in. Dr. Tour calls their speculations "Just So" stories. Faith in the scientific method is belief in a restricted method of inquiry that, using its own methodology, cannot prove itself valid.

Evos do not have MR. WHITE in their cards so they will never find Him.

o_mlly · 2025-10-14T07:18:24-0500

River Jordan said:
This sentence doesn't make sense.

Try harder. You'll get it if you do.

River Jordan said:
Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So once again, the usual retort: I must be ignorant to question the evo theory.

River Jordan said:
I'm not here to make a scientific case for evolution or common ancestry. This is not the proper venue for that; it's a religious forum. ... If you want to debate science I suggest you seek out an actual science forum and not try and do so in a specifically religious forum.

Perhaps you are not aware of this sub-forum title: Creation & Theistic Evolution.

River Jordan said:
And the shared conclusion of effectively all relevant scientists, scientific organizations, university science programs, biotech firms, etc.

Science, especially retrospective sciences, can never make conclusions, only provisional claims.

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-14T07:47:28-0500

o_mlly said:
Really? These are the usual charges made by evos who have no real evidence: attack the messenger with ad hominems-- You're ignorant or dishonest.

James Tour biography, evolution, nobel prize, awards, rice university, nanotechnology, net worth • biography

James Tour biography, evolution, nobel prize, awards, rice university, nanotechnology, net worth | The nanotechnology specialist James M Tour was born on 1959 in the New York City Dr Tour completed his Bachelor of Science in chemistry from Syracuse University

bijog.com

For Tour's contribution to science, he has received many awards. He was ranked among the 10 best chemist in the past decade in 2009. In 2008, he was awarded by Nasa Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers. In 2006, he received the Southern Chemist of the year from the American Chemical Society.The scientist has received many national and international awards for his contribution.

Many don't care what evos personally believe in. Dr. Tour calls their speculations "Just So" stories. Faith in the scientific method is belief in a restricted method of inquiry that, using its own methodology, cannot prove itself valid.

Evos do not have MR. WHITE in their cards so they will never find Him.

Look closely:

"One of the key terms noted above is "nested hierarchies". That's where the evidence is. It's the subject that James Tour has no response for. This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in."

Your response mysteriously fails to address the issue of nested hierarchies.

Your response proves my point. For decades now, critics of science have failed to actually address the science itself. They just put on their blinders and act like they don't understand what's being said.

And here we are. Bored. Nothing left of our opponents but dust. What happened to the golden age of intelligent design? Where did they all go?

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-14T07:55:30-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Look closely:

"One of the key terms noted above is "nested hierarchies". That's where the evidence is. It's the subject that James Tour has no response for. This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in."

Your response mysteriously fails to address the issue of nested hierarchies.

Your response proves my point. For decades now, critics of science have failed to actually address the science itself. They just put on their blinders and act like they don't understand what's being said.

And here we are. Bored. Nothing left of our opponents but dust. What happened to the golden age of intelligent design? Where did they all go?

I remember a time when ID advocates and creationists outnumbered scientists 10 to 1. There was rigorous debate and there were legitimate challenges, questions and growth.

These days, there's nothing but spoiled food scraps left on the table. The best anyone can find is some random YouTuber that doesn't even deny common descent but merely expresses personal incredulity.

o_mlly · 2025-10-14T09:17:20-0500

Job 33:6 said:
"One of the key terms noted above is "nested hierarchies". That's where the evidence is. It's the subject that James Tour has no response for. This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

Where in your "nested hierarchies" do you place the platypus?

We would expect commonalities to occur in many body plans. The problem evos have is leaping from imperfect evidence to boldly claim proof of common decent rather than the humbler claim of "may suggest" common descent.

Job 33:6 said:
And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in.

I have one but you don't have the necessary cards to affirm it. You willingly blind yourself to he most parsimonious explanation because you "personally believe" in the tree of life.

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-14T09:26:55-0500

o_mlly said:
Where in your "nested hierarchies" do you place the platypus?

Right next to the crocoduck of course. Where were you 20 years ago when this topic was addressed? The Kent Hovind playbook is long since debunked.

No one argues that a platypus is actually a bird because it has a duck-like bill, or a reptile because it lays eggs. It has a well established position in taxonomy as a monotreme.

Alright well, I mean this is just sad. I'll be here if there ever is a revival. The ID movement is just a shadow of its former self. Some of us remember. It seems as though the rest will be lost in history.

o_mlly · 2025-10-14T09:51:46-0500

Job 33:6 said:
Right next to the crocoduck of course. Where were you 20 years ago when this topic was addressed? The Kent Hovind playbook is long since debunked.

No one argues that a platypus is actually a bird because it has a duck-like bill, or a reptile because it lays eggs. It has a well established position in taxonomy as a monotreme.

Alright well, I mean this is just sad. I'll be here if there ever is a revival. The ID movement is just a shadow of its former self. Some of us remember. It seems as though the rest will be lost in history.

? Do you have something positive to add to the exchange?

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-14T10:04:18-0500

o_mlly said:
? Do you have something positive to add to the exchange?

Yes. I'll point out that the platypus has a well established position in taxonomic cladistics. It fits in precisely where the theory of evolution suggests that it ought to be in its nested hierarchy. As a monotreme. Do you have any other questions about platypuses?

There is no confusion about whether they should be classified as birds or reptiles.

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-14T10:20:37-0500

o_mlly said:
You willingly blind yourself to he most parsimonious explanation because you "personally believe" in the tree of life.

Even YECs acknowledge the existence of the tree of life these days. This dead horse has been beating into the ground. The Cambrian bunny has never been found. The order of life, be it in genetics, anatomy, the fossil record and more, commonly known as the tree of life, exists and is well established and understood.

River Jordan · 2025-10-14T11:02:23-0500

o_mlly said:
So once again, the usual retort: I must be ignorant to question the evo theory.

No, your ignorance is evidenced by the content of your posts, such as apparently being confused about what a monotreme is.

o_mlly said:
Perhaps you are not aware of this sub-forum title: Creation & Theistic Evolution.

And people post all kinds of odd beliefs here, like that the earth is flat and NASA is one big hoax. I honestly don't see your posts any differently.

If you think Christianforums is the best place to have an in-depth debate about evolutionary biology instead of actual science sites, I guess that's your opinion.

o_mlly said:
Science, especially retrospective sciences, can never make conclusions, only provisional claims.

Sure.

River Jordan · 2025-10-14T11:10:27-0500

Platte said:
My point would be there is an unreasonable jump from any evidence to a Macro evolution conclusion

I don't think the creationists here fully appreciate how, after seeing your above opinion, the reaction from just about every scientist would be something like "So?" Kind of the same reaction you'd get after showing geographers some of the flat earth threads in here.

Of course the reality is 99.99% of scientists will never even know about your opinion in the first place. I guess I'm mostly wondering if you think your opinions on this matter are noteworthy?

Evolution conflict and division

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads