Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes. Typo.

Oh but wait, why is it when I make a typo or spelling error it’s the end of the world?

Cute bumper sticker.

But apt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For those wanting to go off the rails with condemnations of all things scientific, please be advised to read this from the OP, and pay attention to the bolded part:


Can a creationist tell us what they think this diagram indicates, in terms of who is related to who and how?


Simple request, really.

Pity I got Gish Gallops and dodging.

Pity you refuse the answer.

It shows no relationship at all until we get to that point where you draw imaginary lines to imaginary common ancestors. Without those imaginary lines to those imaginary common ancestors that are missing for each and every connecting point, you have nothing showing any relationship.

I know this, you know this, everybody knows this. Yet you continually keep avoiding what you know and refuse to accept the truth.

That “variation within species...While this form of variation is usually ignored by palaeoanthropologists, when characters are recognized as varying, their treatment as a separate state adds considerable error to cladograms.”

And also not only that, but even worse, adding states that do not even exist and connecting those non-existing states with lines that shouldn’t even exist.

 

[pitabread]

It has nothing to do with anything. A creationist scientist is fully able to use biology to make the same results.

Creationism has never been applied in the sciences. Every time I've asked creationists for a direct scientific application of creationism, they come up empty.

And when I ask creationists for how creationism would applied in specific scenarios where evolution is applied, they come up equally empty or they just invoke the evolutionary model.

Future promises? Like if I wait 10 million years I’ll be able to see evolution in action, just not right now?

Boy you're confused. I'm talking about these predictions about the so-called downfall of the ToE. People have been saying the same thing for 100 years and yet the ToE is still a foundational part of modern biology.

Demise of Evolution?

How Christianity is Growing Around the World

Creationism and Christianity aren't the same thing. Creationism is a specific subset of beliefs typically involving the rejection of various aspects of mainstream science. Some of which may be Christian in origin and some which may not (since there are Muslim and Jewish creationists as well).

Based on polling in the U.S. (previously linked), creationism appears on the decline and has been for the last couple decades.

 

[pitabread]

Oh but wait, why is it when I make a typo or spelling error it’s the end of the world?

Largely because you appear to lack fundamental understanding of some of the terms you use. If it was a typo here or there, nobody would care. When you continually misuse the same terms over and over, then it speaks to a deeper issue than mere spelling.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Creationism has never been applied in the sciences. Every time I've asked creationists for a direct scientific application of creationism, they come up empty.

And every time I ask an evolutionist the same question, we find evolution isn’t needed at all to explain the data.

And when I ask creationists for how creationism would applied in specific scenarios where evolution is applied, they come up equally empty or they just invoke the evolutionary model.

Ask, I’ll give you the answer, but all I see is claims without a single scenario you claim can’t be answered without evolution.

Boy you're confused. I'm talking about these predictions about the so-called downfall of the ToE. People have been saying the same thing for 100 years and yet the ToE is still a foundational part of modern biology.

Of course, epicycles can be extended indefinitely and seem to be true even when false. Ask Ptolomey he was quite adept at it.

Creationism and Christianity aren't the same thing. Creationism is a specific subset of beliefs typically involving the rejection of various aspects of mainstream science. Some of which may be Christian in origin and some which may not (since there are Muslim and Jewish creationists as well).

Based on polling in the U.S. (previously linked), creationism appears on the decline and has been for the last couple decades.

And abiogenesis is separate from your false beliefs in evolution. As is abiogenesis in direct conflict with science. Every single experiment designed to show its feasibility has resulted in conditions totally incompatible with the conditions required to make every other component required.

And no, based on polling those that believe in evolution were 19% versus 38% for God creates us in our present form and tied with humans evolved with God guiding.

So the belief God had a hand one way or another outdoes evolution by 76% to 19% with 5% no opinion. There’s never been a single point in time where evolution was the majority belief, and never will be.

Your a minority belief system even with your specially protected rights of school teaching that discriminated against creation. Once children grow up most are able to break the bonds of brainwashing when they can check the facts for themselves, and come to the correct conclusion of creation.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Get with the times and stop the evolutionary PR.

There is one major flaw in the poll. Since it links origin with evolution and we’ve all heard your excuses that origin has no part in evolution. So the numbers might change drastically we’re people asked if they believe life was a random chance occurrence which then proceeded by evolution. Origin, by your own claims, is separate from evolution, but the poll ties them together, as if origin was explained by evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Largely because you appear to lack fundamental understanding of some of the terms you use. If it was a typo here or there, nobody would care. When you continually misuse the same terms over and over, then it speaks to a deeper issue than mere spelling.

Oh wait, is that like tas trying to show my saying single letters or nucleotides as if I didn’t understand? Is that the lack of fundamental understanding?

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

“in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A.”

In reality it’s you all that never seem to understand what you claim to understand.

But you close your mind and see and hear only what you want to see and hear. And despite my refuting every claim you all have made about not understanding, you blind yourself to the truth.

Or is that like your beliefs in what nationally recognized polls actually say?

And yet despite your claims, it was only the spelling errors you could call attention to. Imagine that....

Evolutionary PR trash.....

 

[pitabread]

And every time I ask an evolutionist the same question, we find evolution isn’t needed at all to explain the data.

...

This isn't about "explaining the data". This is about scientific application; i.e. using science to actually do stuff.

Ask, I’ll give you the answer, but all I see is claims without a single scenario you claim can’t be answered without evolution.

Sure. Good luck.

Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting

Your a minority belief system

Re-read the poll. The majority of respondents answered that they believed humans evolved. You might be confusing evolution and atheism though, given the rest of your response.

There is one major flaw in the poll. Since it links origin with evolution and we’ve all heard your excuses that origin has no part in evolution. So the numbers might change drastically we’re people asked if they believe life was a random chance occurrence which then proceeded by evolution. Origin, by your own claims, is separate from evolution, but the poll ties them together, as if origin was explained by evolution.

The question is specifically asking about the origin of humans, which has nothing to do with abiogenesis (since humans evolved from earlier species).

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionary PR trash.....

Is this your bumper sticker catch phrase?

I've noticed creationists have a habit of adopting these bumper-sticker style catch phrases.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've noticed creationists have a habit of adopting these bumper-sticker style catch phrases.

God is my Pilot.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

...

This isn't about "explaining the data". This is about scientific application; i.e. using science to actually do stuff.

And nothing was done that required one to believe in evolution to do it.

Sure. Good luck.

Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting

Again, no evolution is needed. It’s those phylogenies trees inaccuracy that is being discussed and your biologists have already admitted are inherently inaccurate. It’s those missing common ancestors that link those separate species in each and every case. Imaginary lines drawn to non-existent imaginary common ancestors. All I see is imagination. Garbage in garbage out.

Re-read the poll. The majority of respondents answered that they believed humans evolved. You might be confusing evolution and atheism though, given the rest of your response.

My God, got the numbers right before your eyes and you still can’t get things right. Only 19% believed evolution proceeded without God. 38% believed God created life and it evolved with His help. Another 38% believed life was created as we see it. I mean please, it’s no wonder you can’t get anything right, you think 19% is greater than 38%.

The question is specifically asking about the origin of humans, which has nothing to do with abiogenesis (since humans evolved from earlier species).

No, again you can’t comprehend correctly. The question was specifically.... “Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- (human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, (or) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so)?”

Followed later on the poll by direct questions of the origin that of life... “Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false (or) definitely false]?”

And also... “Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false (or) definitely false]?”

To which by the way creation again got more definitely true responses by 39%to 18%.

Your a minority belief system and always will be. Even if the question implies origin can be explained by evolution, which it can’t. And earlier species had to start somehow or they couldn’t evolve. You all like to pretend origin isn’t important to evolution, but it’s paramount. Without origin there is no evolution. Not that there is anyways.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is this your bumper sticker catch phrase?

I've noticed creationists have a habit of adopting these bumper-sticker style catch phrases.

Got a problem with it stop regurgitating evolutionary PR trash. But since your only response was bumper stickers we assume you have no response or objection to the rest left unanswered. I’m glad you tacitly admit your claims were in error by silence...

 

[pitabread]

And nothing was done that required one to believe in evolution to do it.

You're wrong.

Again, no evolution is needed. It’s those phylogenies trees inaccuracy that is being discussed and your biologists have already admitted are inherently inaccurate. It’s those missing common ancestors that link those separate species in each and every case. Imaginary lines drawn to non-existent imaginary common ancestors. All I see is imagination. Garbage in garbage out.

Typical creationist hand waving dismissal response. I didn't expect much else. It's really a boring response though.

This is why creationists have nothing to offer when it comes to the applied sciences, and certainly nothing to counter modern evolutionary biology.

My God, got the numbers right before your eyes and you still can’t get things right. Only 19% believed evolution proceeded without God. 38% believed God created life and it evolved with His help. Another 38% believed life was created as we see it. I mean please, it’s no wonder you can’t get anything right, you think 19% is greater than 38%.

You're interpreting it the way you want to interpret it. Believe what you want.

No, again you can’t comprehend correctly.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

[pitabread]

Got a problem with it stop regurgitating evolutionary PR trash. But since your only response was bumper stickers we assume you have no response or objection to the rest left unanswered.

I honestly don't care. I'm putting you back on ignore now, since there's clearly nothing interesting to be discussed here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't we all just get along?

C'mon ... it's Christmas!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let’s take a closer look at one of evolutionary supporters response.

“The question is specifically asking about the origin of humans, which has nothing to do with abiogenesis (since humans evolved from earlier species).”

Which earlier species evolved from earlier, until we get to the point where life had to start. You got no theory without Abiogenesis. Without the start of life, there is no life to evolve.

But then we already know their beliefs in humans evolving from earlier life leads to non-existent common ancestors connected to different forms. Which then leads back to non-existent common ancestors connected to different forms. Which then leads back to non-existent common ancestors..... and on and on and on in a viscous circle of make believe. 96% of their belief relies of non-existent entities, but look out creationists, they’ll chide you because 4% of your belief relies on faith.

I mean we all know every form remains distinct until we get to those non-existent common ancestors. In reality their cladograms are based wholly upon the requirement that you put faith in non-existent common ancestors to bridge the gap between every distinct form.

So should we accept all the evidence that shows Kind always remain the same Kind, or ignore this evidence and put faith in humans that tell us to believe in these non-existent common ancestors just to validate their theory that Kind become other Kind?

As has been shown to them repeatedly in the thread on Darwin’s finches, they can’t even follow their own scientific definition of subspecies that they themselves wrote. Then want us to accept imaginary lines drawn to imaginary creatures and take it as not imagination, but fact. When the actual facts shows a distinct demarcation between each distinct Kind. That the lines end in reality not on imaginary non-existent common ancestors, but abruptly at the creation of each Kind.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

My God, got the numbers right before your eyes and you still can’t get things right.

Oh the irony.....

Only 19% believed evolution proceeded without God. 38% believed God created life and it evolved with His help.

The best part of this is that you can't add 19% to 38% for a total of 57% who believe in evolution.

Another 38% believed life was created as we see it. I mean please, it’s no wonder you can’t get anything right, you think 19% is greater than 38%.

But you think 38% is greater than 57%. "It's no wonder you can't get anything right"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I honestly don't care. I'm putting you back on ignore now, since there's clearly nothing interesting to be discussed here.

You got no answers so pretend once again it’s anything but that. Understood. Is this ignore going to be as trustworthy as the last time you made that claim?

If only my prayers are answered I’ll stay there... lol, like I’ll be so disappointed.... not.

 

[pitabread]

Can't we all just get along?

C'mon ... it's Christmas!

I think the day I find a creationist willing to acknowledge and actually discuss applied evolutionary biology, I'd consider that a Christmas miracle.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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, you got that wrong too.

19% believed evolution was the sole explanation. 38% believed God created us as is. Another 38% believed we were created, but evolved with Gods help.

Therefore 76% believed man was created, and that He had a hand in it one way or another, evolution or not. Only 19% believed God was not involved in the creation of man.

So I don’t add 19% to 38%. I added the 38% that believed God created us as is, to the other 38% that believed God created us, but that we evolved with His help. That makes 76% not 57%. 76% of the people believed that evolution or not, God was responsible for the creation of life. Versus only 19% that believed God had no hand in it at all, evolution or not.

Ahh I see, you didn’t actually read the poll, you just misunderstood the part where I said tied with those who believed God created us as is, not understanding that was another 38%. So your misunderstanding comes from not actually reading the poll before responding.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No, you got that wrong too.

Are you really sure? Let's have close look...

19% believed evolution was the sole explanation.

Agreed

38% believed God created us as is.

Agreed

Another 38% believed we were created, but evolved with Gods help.

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.