Circular Reasoning

[Justatruthseeker]

You have no explanation as to why the evidence supports evolution.

I'm still waiting for this evidence you "claim" supports it. Saying you have evidence does not make it a fact.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm still waiting for this evidence you "claim" supports it. Saying you have evidence does not make it a fact.

The above post claiming to still be waiting for evidence of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene; that same broken gene, with the same break even, shared with other primates, clear evidence of common descent according to the flesh among the primates including ourselves.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul, you may be interested in what the Laser Spine Institute has to say (shown below).

It's a little different than the other websites which are determined to keep the TOE from suffering any embarrassment.

Of special interest, you may note that the Sphincter ani externus is dependent on this "vestigial" body part.

In other words, without it, you wouldn't be able to control your bowels.

Enjoy this:

The tailbone, more properly known as the coccyx, is situated at the very end of the spinal column. The tailbone is made up of three to five fused vertebral bones, though four is most common. The tailbone derived its name because some people believe it is a “leftover” part from human evolution, though the notion that the tailbone serves no purpose is wrong. The coccyx is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles, though it is structured quite differently than other parts of the spine.
The tailbone, or coccyx, is the last of five regions of the spine – below the cervical spine (neck), thoracic spine (middle back), lumbar spine (lower back) and sacrum (lower back). The tailbone connects to the sacrum via a cartilaginous joint called the sacrococcygeal symphysis. Interestingly, this joint is similar in composition to the spine’s intervertebral discs.
Muscles that attach to the tailbone and contribute to sitting, standing and bowel control include:

• Gluteus maximus – large gluteal muscle; helps keep body erect
• Levator ani – thin muscle; helps support organs of the pelvis
• Sphincter ani externus – flat muscle; assists in bowel function
• Coccygeus – triangular muscle; supports the pelvic floor

The tailbone is referred to as the coccygeal region and the bones diminish in size as they go down. Unlike the vertebral bones in most other spinal regions, the tailbone has no spinous processes, pedicles or laminae. Any pain that is felt in the coccyx is referred to as “coccydynia.” Sometimes, pain that is felt in the region of the tailbone is due to damage or injury in other parts of the spine. For instance, radicular, or radiating pain, that is felt shooting down the legs could be from foraminal stenosis in the lumbar spine, a condition that involves the narrowing of the foramen, or open spaces between the vertebrae through which nerve roots travel. If these spaces become narrow, increased stress is put on the nerves, which could contribute to symptoms of traveling pain, numbness and tingling. Other consequences could include a loss of ability to move properly. Needless to say, because the tailbone does support so much weight, injuries in this area transfer large amounts of increased stress to other areas of the spine, thereby making them more prone to damage

Let me repeat my earlier question. If the coccyx is so useful and so important to us tailless apes, how come the coccyx is missing in all those monkeys with true tails? How do they manage to get along without that "extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments, and muscles"?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm still waiting for this evidence you "claim" supports it. Saying you have evidence does not make it a fact.

There is a nice thread on ERV evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867271/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is a nice thread on ERV evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867271/

Except HGT throws that out the window. There is no way to distinguish which genes were inserted by either method - except wishful thinking.

So again. What evidence do you have since these genes lineages are now so scrambled there is no way to call it evidence at all.

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

"The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms."

 

[Loudmouth]

Except HGT throws that out the window. There is no way to distinguish which genes were inserted by either method - except wishful thinking.

I explain in the thread how you can distinguish between HGT and VGT with respect to ERV's. If HGT were responsible for the ERV's in the chimp and human genome then the insertions would be found at different bases within the genome. If vertical inheritance from a common ancestor is the cause for the ERV's, then we should find them at the same base in each genome.

So again. What evidence do you have since these genes lineages are now so scrambled there is no way to call it evidence at all.

You have to show that the genes are scrambled first. You haven't done that.

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

"The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms."

Humans and chimps are not on distant parts of the tree of life. What you are describing only pertains to linking eukaryotes to prokaryotes. HGT is relatively rare in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes.

 

[RickG]

I'm still waiting for this evidence you "claim" supports it.

This thread is not about evidence for evolution. Go wait in a thread that is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This thread is not about evidence for evolution. Go wait in a thread that is.

Then tell your fellow evolutionists to quit making claims of evidence if you can't produce it. And it is very much about evidence - or are you saying there is no evidence at all to support evolution and your dating of fossils?

But we already understand evolution itself is not about evidence - so why let it get in the way now, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then tell your fellow evolutionists to quit making claims of evidence if you can't produce it.

ERV evidence produced here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7867271/

You ran away from this evidence without ever addressing it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I explain in the thread how you can distinguish between HGT and VGT with respect to ERV's. If HGT were responsible for the ERV's in the chimp and human genome then the insertions would be found at different bases within the genome. If vertical inheritance from a common ancestor is the cause for the ERV's, then we should find them at the same base in each genome.



You have to show that the genes are scrambled first. You haven't done that.



Humans and chimps are not on distant parts of the tree of life. What you are describing only pertains to linking eukaryotes to prokaryotes. HGT is relatively rare in eukaryotes compared to prokaryotes.

So you "CLAIM". I always see big claims, but never any fact. the fact is it scrambles everything you claimed about lineages, you just don't want to admit it.

And tell me - if you can't unscramble it in your "simple" life - how do you expect to unscramble it in the "complex" life?

Despite geneticists stating the exact opposite of what you now claim.

Microorganisms Slipped Genes into Humans, Primates, and Other Animals | GEN News Highlights | GEN

But we'll pretend otherwise I guess.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Need more?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...-Gene-Transfer-a-Hallmark-of-Animal-Genomes-/

Humans, primates regularly swap genes with microbes - UPI.com

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

And we could go on and on if more is needed?

 

[Loudmouth]

So you "CLAIM".

I did more than claim it. I demonstrated it through the use of real observations and evidence. Please address the evidence instead of running away from it.

And tell me - if you can't unscramble it in your "simple" life - how do you expect to unscramble it in the "complex" life?

It is the distance between the species that causes problems, not simplicity or complexity. Don't you read your own references?

Despite geneticists stating the exact opposite of what you now claim.

They are saying the same thing I am. HGT is rare in eukaryotes. Finding the rare events does not stop them from being rare.

When we compared the chimp and human genomes, over 98% of the genomes aligned. HGT would show up as indels in each of the genomes and those sections would not align. Therefore, more than 98% of the chimp and human genome was passed down vertically from a common ancestor. That is the data.

 

[Loudmouth]

Need more?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...-Gene-Transfer-a-Hallmark-of-Animal-Genomes-/

Humans, primates regularly swap genes with microbes - UPI.com

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

And we could go on and on if more is needed?

Citing rare HGT events does not refute the fact that they are rare. What you need to show is that the rate of HGT is high enough to mask the signal from VGT in closely related species like humans and chimps. As already discussed, more than 98% of the human and chimp genomes align meaning that less than 2% of each genome has experienced HGT since sharing a common ancestor. The other 98% is due to common ancestry.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then tell your fellow evolutionists to quit making claims of evidence if you can't produce it. And it is very much about evidence - or are you saying there is no evidence at all to support evolution and your dating of fossils?

But we already understand evolution itself is not about evidence - so why let it get in the way now, right?

The above denial of evidence for evolution was written by a human with vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a thing utterly useless to him as our ears have evolved stationary status the better to do instant phase analysis of incoming sounds. But they are clear evidence of our physical descent from a previous species that could turn its ears towards sound to good effect.

Oh, by the way, I can wiggle my ears!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Citing rare HGT events does not refute the fact that they are rare. What you need to show is that the rate of HGT is high enough to mask the signal from VGT in closely related species like humans and chimps. As already discussed, more than 98% of the human and chimp genomes align meaning that less than 2% of each genome has experienced HGT since sharing a common ancestor. The other 98% is due to common ancestry.

Doesn't matter if they are rare.

Horizontal gene transfer in evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms. Furthermore, HGT poses challenges for the ambitious reconstruction of the earliest events in evolution. Because the early branches of the tree of life spanned long time intervals and involved large numbers of organisms, many low-probability HGT events are certain to have occurred."


Why won't you accept what geneticists are telling you? Because you don't want it to be true?


Don't you believe evolution occurred despite the low probability of life starting itself? Now suddenly you won't accept low probability events? Sounds kind of wishy-washy to me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The above denial of evidence for evolution was written by a human with vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a thing utterly useless to him as our ears have evolved stationary status the better to do instant phase analysis of incoming sounds. But they are clear evidence of our physical descent from a previous species that could turn its ears towards sound to good effect.

Oh, by the way, I can wiggle my ears!

Good for you. Yet the ability to wiggle one's ears is poor evidence - considering all the evidence you claim to have - this is your best?

So would you then agree you are less evolved than those who can't wiggle their ears - since less evolved creatures have better control over this?

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/wiggling-your-ears

"After that beautiful set up, the unfortunate answer is we don’t know."

"BUT, the researchers in this study also found cases where parents of ear-wigglers couldn’t wiggle! So, it was clear that ear wiggling was not a simple inherited trait."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Except HGT throws that out the window. There is no way to distinguish which genes were inserted by either method - except wishful thinking.

So again. What evidence do you have since these genes lineages are now so scrambled there is no way to call it evidence at all.

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

"The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms."

Scrambled data doesn't match. you are up against matching data.

 

[Split Rock]

Doesn't matter if they are rare.

Of course it does. Just re-read what you just wrote. If it's rare, its effect is smaller.

Horizontal gene transfer in evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The fact that genes can move between distant branches of the tree of life even at low probabilities raises challenges to scientists trying to reconstruct evolution by studying genes and gene sequences in different organisms. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) effectively scrambles the information on which biologists rely to reconstruct the phylogeny of organisms. Furthermore, HGT poses challenges for the ambitious reconstruction of the earliest events in evolution. Because the early branches of the tree of life spanned long time intervals and involved large numbers of organisms, many low-probability HGT events are certain to have occurred."

Do you even read what you cite? "HGT poses challenges for the ambitious reconstruction of the earliest events in evolution." For "earliest events," read "lower in the tree." Isn't that exactly what we have been telling you all along??
W.T.F.?

Why won't you accept what geneticists are telling you? Because you don't want it to be true?

What won't you?

Don't you believe evolution occurred despite the low probability of life starting itself? Now suddenly you won't accept low probability events? Sounds kind of wishy-washy to me.

And back to abiogenesis... the creationist shell game continues......

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't matter if they are rare.

It most certainly does matter. All you are showing is that you don't understand the topic.

Why won't you accept what geneticists are telling you?

A million irony meters just exploded. Here is a geneticist for you.

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

Dr. Francis Collins is a rather well known geneticist. He ran the NIH Human Genome Project. He now heads the NIH. Perhaps you should listen to the geneticists?

Don't you believe evolution occurred despite the low probability of life starting itself? Now suddenly you won't accept low probability events? Sounds kind of wishy-washy to me.

Life didn't have to start all by itself in order for life to evolve. A deity or space alien could have planted a simple replicator on Earth as the first ancestor of all life, and the theory of evolution wouldn't need to change one iota.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Good for you. Yet the ability to wiggle one's ears is poor evidence - considering all the evidence you claim to have - this is your best?

Hardly, but it is dramatic evidence you should accept, which of course you don't.

So would you then agree you are less evolved than those who can't wiggle their ears - since less evolved creatures have better control over this?

That would be dumb. Evolution has simply bypassed the ear wiggling phase of our past, and the ability to wiggle ears doesn't matter any more.

"BUT, the researchers in this study also found cases where parents of ear-wigglers couldn’t wiggle! So, it was clear that ear wiggling was not a simple inherited trait."

But every human being has those muscles; some have learned to activate them, and some have not. Why you think this annuls the evidence our ear wiggling muscles present is a mystery. The fact that ear wiggling talent is sometimes there and sometimes not is a further sign the ability is vestigial instead of essential, after all.