Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The day I find one who will follow the scientific definitions they themselves wrote will indeed be a miracle. But we already know what arguments are that try to rewrite the dictionary.....I think the day I find a creationist will to acknowledge and actually discuss applied evolutionary biology, I'd consider that a Christmas miracle.
Oh the irony.....
The best part of this is that you can't add 19% to 38% for a total of 57% who believe in evolution.
But you think 38% is greater than 57%. "It's no wonder you can't get anything right"
No, because evolution does not speak of origin, and the question involved origin. So those that believed God helped, also believe God created that first life.Are you really sure? Let's have close look...
Agreed
Agreed
Wrong. This 38% believe God created life and humans evolved with God's help.
So, 57% believe humans evolved, 38% believe they were created.
Game, set and match. Thank you for playing.
You just can't admit you got it wrong, can you?No, because evolution does not speak of origin, and the question involved origin. So those that believed God helped, also believe God created that first life.
So if you like we can make it 76% that God was involved, to 57% that simply believe we evolved, God or no God. But only 19% believed life happened by random chance.
Notice how your buddy has gone very quiet and you're not rushing to defend him? Perhaps you could teach him how to admit he was wrong.Notice that none of the resident atheists had anything substantive to contribute to the Clade discussion? I gave them so much from scientists to work with (confirmations of all I said) but they have no response other than deflection and insults (no surprise really).
Adding this pep talk to this post for JTS after I pointed out that is was missing smacks of dishonesty. But the timestamp doesn't lie, so we can all see what you've done there.Don't they know that the latest Gallup poll showed 8 out of 10 random people across the US (different ages, gender, ethnicities, and educational levels) believe in some sense of God? 1 of 10 are honest agnostics, and only 1 in 10 are atheist. What a sad minority they are.
Don't fall for their default to make this about God JTS (we are in good company) ...they have to avoid the facts and opinions presented (just like they did in the other thread where you brought up so many undeniable issues and sound questions)....ignore this default tactic, and make them be accountable (insist they answer) they just want to put you on the defensive because they cannot deny the truth within and it makes them angry.
Notice that none of the resident atheists had anything substantive to contribute to the Clade discussion? I gave them so much from scientists to work with (confirmations of all I said) but they have no response other than deflection and insults (no surprise really).
It also shows belief in ID is on the rise. It also shows evolution has stagnated the last 3 years in a row and remained the same, not increasing at all.I've noticed that some people interpret "creationism" to mean anything and everything that includes any theistic belief. It's not a particularly useful definition mind you, since we might as well just say theism instead.
Regardless, the poll does show that traditional creationist beliefs (whereby humans were specially created absent of evolution from earlier species) is on the decline. I'm sure some will choose to engage in mental gymnastics to try to spin it otherwise, but what can ya do?
Also notice that your post is a deflection filled with veiled insults.
He gave you an interpretation already. As did others. I’ll repeat the interpretation.Oh my gosh yes - the resident creationist expert on all things gave us SO MUCH science to work with from Wiki and the like - almost as if it was all archived somewhere.
So much science that had ZERO to do with the OP - wherein I asked for INTERPRETATIONS of a specific cladogram, and you replied - off-topic - with you new-usual Randy Wysong song and dance about 'intelligently designed' programs and the like.
I mean, the TITLE of the thread was so straightforward:
"Asking for interpretations of this cladogram "
THIS cladogram!
Not "Give us your nitpicky treatise on why you reject anything that does not prop up your bible-based fantasies".
How about YOU respond ON TOPIC and just tell us how to interpret THIS cladogram - which you did not do in the first place:
At creation,
He gave you an interpretation already. As did others. I’ll repeat the interpretation.
It is a interpretation of imaginary relationships based on imaginary lines linking existing forms together with non-existent common ancestors.
The point where every line connects to the next line requires one to insert non-existent creatures that are at every point of connection missing. Whether the representation is broad and sweeping as this one, or zoomed in to more detail.
Each point where one distinct form ends and another begins is in all cases connected with non-existent forms.
Now they claim lack of fossils to explain these missing forms at every juncture, but of course we have the distinct forms before and after this claimed relational joining, just never for the one that splits. Not just now and then, but for every single place they need to join two forms together to show relationship.
Isn't it odd - the lengths a Christian will go to try to prop up their beliefs, even when they have been shown, more than once, how these things are actually done...It’s a cladogram built on pure imagination that reflects the real world not at all.
This is the correct interpretation of this cladogram, and all others that attempt to join forms with non-existent ancestors connected with the lines of imagination.
Take a zoomed in one for humans as an example.
View attachment 215716
We see the first mistake occurs in as pointed out to them variation within species taken as separate species. Neanderthal and modern humans are shown as splitting from a non-existent common ancestor. This is as because we all know, modern humans and neanderthal are merely subspecies capable of interbreeding where their ranges overlapped.
Notice that at each split of forms, no form can be found that split. It is all imagination based on desire to substantiate their beliefs regardless of the facts.
It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one).
It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees.
It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes [sic] and so on shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.
In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of a population.
In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.
Citation?Lufengpithecus chiangmuanensis from Thailand reckoned to be an ancestor of Orangutans allegedly existed about 10 – 13.6 mya. This was final confirmation of the long held belief that Apes (that became Gorillas and Orangutans) originated and came out of Asia. The split had previously been believed to have happened about 8 mya (the chimp human split occurring about 6 mya as this clade depicts). Only now we have found indications of Gorillas (Chororapithecus abyssinicus) in Africa from 10 – 12 mya (What?) and the whole house of cards comes falling down and now we even have to correct the textbooks (What? Not really uncommon) but sadly many generations are already brainwashed. Will they admit they were wr-wr-wrong? NO! But surely this clade is....
But now a new artist will have to make a new one...who will this imprinting technique convince? Hmmm?
You assume it didn’t.You assume that creation happened.
You assume it isn’t based on your assumption this event didn’t occurr.You assume that the bible is an accurate representation of this event that you assume occurred.
No, because all forms are found fully formed and complete. With no linking forms between the distinct forms. Or have you forgotten all your common ancestors are non-existent?Because it is in the bible.
When you provide evidence that 1. Life began from non life randomly and 2. That biologists that ignore their own definitions and are shown to be wrong every few years are a reliable source and that these missing common ancestors that join forms actually exist except in the imagination, and 3, that there is corroborative evidence that they are correct and that life started from non life, your position will have merit.When you provide evidence that 1. creation happened as indicated in the bible and 2. the bible is a reliable source and 3, there is corroborative evidence that the bible is correct and that creation occurred, you position will have merit.
don’t you mean single letters, which I already proved was a false claim on your part since single-nucleotide polymorphism is exactly a single letter replaced by another single letter. Or must we go through the explanation all over agin which proved your claims merit less, as always?That is not an interpretation.
That is a simple-minded dodge in order to not have to deal with a reality-based science that contradicts your phony, naive 'folk genetics.'
What, with your senile genetic loci and your allies...
It shows you have a vivid imagination....So you don't know what a cladogram shows, either, but want to pretend that you do.
Odd you find it necessary to misrepresent what he said. He said the cladogram ASSUMED that each existent creature was derived from one other existing creature. Exactly what I stated, you assume a common ancestor to bridge, as he put it, the gaps....... but I understand you find it necessary to misquote people in order to enhance your side of the story....Odd - because pshun claimed before that each existent creature was derived from one other existing creature.
Looks like you boys better get your stories straight.
We agree you suffer from multiple disorders including cognitive dissonance.Dunning-Kruger effect.
Except you have no DNA from those fossils to analyze....Fossils are irrelevant to molecular analyses.
Yes isn’t it odd the lengths evolutionists go to to prop up their beliefs in missing common ancestors.Isn't it odd - the lengths a Christian will go to try to prop up their beliefs, even when they have been shown, more than once, how these things are actually done...
Hmm, let’s look at that objectively.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.
==================================
In other words when our maps don’t match, we then weight them with mathematical fudgery and bias them until they match what we want them to say.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.
Here is a high school science lab exercise explaining how cladograms can be made using morphological characters:
http://www.bu.edu/gk12/eric/cladogram.pdf
I suggest you take a look.
Molecular data supply vastly more characters, since each nucleotide locus can be a datum point.
Patterns which you claim mutations change randomly, so what went before that random change is a complete unknown until you weight the results with statistical bias....It is the assessment of these patterns that produces the cladogram - not imagination or any of the other acts of dishonesty you and your ilk need to spread to counter science that you cannot understand and do not like.
Says the man that wants mutations to randomly change the DNA, then thinks he can accurately deduce what the DNA was before this random change. Lol, just priceless.That is the ranting of someone generally ignorant of the entirre field of biology, but desperate to prop up their crumbling religion, nothing more.
So tell us all, oh systematics expert, how, exactly, 2 subspecies should be depicted on a cladogram.
Here is another cladogram:
Golly gee - lookie there! The two major groups of chimps shown on separate branches!
And this one:
Golly! This must mean that all dogs are separate species! According to YOU and your amazing knowledge of phylogenetics and systematics!
And here is one from Answers in Genesis!:
Justatruthseeker best contact those frauds at AiG immediately to let them know the TRUTH about cladograms! And have pshun join you - they will all be duly impressed with his wiki quotes and 30 whole years of amassed science knowledge, and will doubtless IMMEDIATELY retract their phony 'baraminology' papers!
Please show us, oh master science expert, the cladogram showing your relationship to Adam.
I'm sure it will not be based on any assumptions and will have a known and identified 'form' at each and every node.
Thanks for trying, but your "interpretation" is akin to those obese, dumpy couch potatoes screaming 'You suck!' at a professional athlete.
Is that like interpreting separate species to mean anything and everything that includes whatever belief any person wants them to be at any given time? It’s not a particularly useful definition mind you, since we might just as well say anything at any time.I've noticed that some people interpret "creationism" to mean anything and everything that includes any theistic belief. It's not a particularly useful definition mind you, since we might as well just say theism instead.
Notice how your buddy has gone very quiet and you're not rushing to defend him? Perhaps you could teach him how to admit he was wrong.
Also notice that your post is a deflection filled with veiled insults.
Oh my gosh yes - the resident creationist expert on all things gave us SO MUCH science to work with from Wiki and the like - almost as if it was all archived somewhere.
So much science that had ZERO to do with the OP - wherein I asked for INTERPRETATIONS of a specific cladogram, and you replied - off-topic - with you new-usual Randy Wysong song and dance about 'intelligently designed' programs and the like.
I mean, the TITLE of the thread was so straightforward:
"Asking for interpretations of this cladogram "
THIS cladogram!
Not "Give us your nitpicky treatise on why you reject anything that does not prop up your bible-based fantasies".
How about YOU respond ON TOPIC and just tell us how to interpret THIS cladogram - which you did not do in the first place:
That is not an interpretation.
That is a simple-minded dodge in order to not have to deal with a reality-based science that contradicts your phony, naive 'folk genetics.'
What, with your senile genetic loci and your allies...
So you don't know what a cladogram shows, either, but want to pretend that you do.
Odd - because pshun claimed before that each existent creature was derived from one other existing creature.
Looks like you boys better get your stories straight.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
Fossils are irrelevant to molecular analyses.
Isn't it odd - the lengths a Christian will go to try to prop up their beliefs, even when they have been shown, more than once, how these things are actually done...
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.
Here is a high school science lab exercise explaining how cladograms can be made using morphological characters:
http://www.bu.edu/gk12/eric/cladogram.pdf
I suggest you take a look.
Molecular data supply vastly more characters, since each nucleotide locus can be a datum point.
It is the assessment of these patterns that produces the cladogram - not imagination or any of the other acts of dishonesty you and your ilk need to spread to counter science that you cannot understand and do not like.
That is the ranting of someone generally ignorant of the entire field of biology, but desperate to prop up their crumbling religion, nothing more.
So tell us all, oh systematics expert, how, exactly, 2 subspecies should be depicted on a cladogram.
Here is another cladogram:
Golly gee - lookie there! The two major groups of chimps shown on separate branches!
And this one:
Golly! This must mean that all dogs are separate species! According to YOU and your amazing knowledge of phylogenetics and systematics!
And here is one from Answers in Genesis!:
Justatruthseeker best contact those frauds at AiG immediately to let them know the TRUTH about cladograms! And have pshun join you - they will all be duly impressed with his wiki quotes and 30 whole years of amassed science knowledge, and will doubtless IMMEDIATELY retract their phony 'baraminology' papers!
Please show us, oh master science expert, the cladogram showing your relationship to Adam.
I'm sure it will not be based on any assumptions and will have a known and identified 'form' at each and every node.
Thanks for trying, but your "interpretation" is akin to those obese, dumpy couch potatoes screaming 'You suck!' at a professional athlete.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?