Does science actually admit "design"?

[Justatruthseeker]

Still looking through keyword searches to try to spin a result into something that will sort of kind of look like it supports your silly claims and identical breeding pairs producing variation?

I still notice you want to avoid a self repair mechanism designed to correct the very process you claim is essential to support your dead theory.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You are not a pleasant person to interact with. Too many insults.

That’s because it’s all they have. When one has no real science to back them up, they tend to devolve into ad hominem attacks.

 

[tas8831]

You are not a pleasant person to interact with. Too many insults.

You are not an honest broker, too many trollish habits.

Like:

Repetition of debunked assertions
Responding only to a small or even tangential issue in very long posts and ignoring the rest
Asking others for sources then ignoring the sources when they are given
Refusing to provide actual support for claims
Playing martyr when people expose and exploit your trollish habits
etc.


Like this:

The topic is sounds, not Speech and Language.

Was the entirety of the IQ of 135 creationist super-genius' response to this:

You implied you know about Gray's anatomy, right?

By the way - I ALREADY provided you with a source, but you probably just didn't bother to read it. Creationists are like that - they don't actually want to know how little they know.


So, since you think Google U makes you the expert you pretend to be, I found these in a couple of minutes:

The Neural Basis of Speech and Language (this is the one I linked for you before and you clearly ignored or more likely could not understand)
http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449652678/74738_CH02_FINAL.pdf


Vagus Nerve
http://www.caam.rice.edu/~cox/wrap/vagusnerve.pdf

Why, even Wiki:
General visceral afferent fibers - Wikipedia


From here:

General visceral afferent fibers


The general visceral afferent fibers (GVA) conduct sensory impulses (usually pain or reflex sensations) from the internal organs, glands, and blood vessels to the central nervous system.[1] They are considered to be part of the autonomic nervous system. However, unlike the efferent fibers of the autonomic nervous system, the afferent fibers are not classified as either sympathetic or parasympathetic.[2]

GVA fibers create referred pain by activating general somatic afferent fibers where the two meet in the posterior grey column.

The cranial nerves that contain GVA fibers include the facial nerve (CN VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN IX), and the vagus nerve (CN X).[3]

Generally, they are insensitive to cutting, crushing or burning, excessive tension in smooth muscle and some pathological conditions produce visceral pain (referred pain).[4]

Pathway
Abdomen

In the abdomen, general visceral afferent fibers usually accompany sympathetic efferent fibers. This means that a signal traveling in an afferent fiber will begin at sensory receptors in the afferent fiber's target organ, travel up to the ganglion where the sympathetic efferent fiber synapses, continue back along a splanchnic nerve from the ganglion into the sympathetic trunk, move into a ventral ramus via a white ramus communicans, and finally move into the mixed spinal nerve between the division of the rami and the division of the roots of the spinal nerve. The GVA pathway then diverges from the sympathetic efferent pathway, which follows the ventral root into the spinal column, by following the dorsal root into the dorsal root ganglion, where the cell body of the visceral afferent nerve is located.[5] Finally, the signal continues along the dorsal root from the dorsal root ganglion to a region of gray matter in the dorsal horn of the spinal column where it is transmitted via a synapse to a neuron in the central nervous system.[2]

The only GVA nerves in the abdomen that do not follow the above pathway are those that innervate structures in the distal half of the sigmoid colon and the rectum. These afferent fibers, instead, follow the path of parasympathetic efferent fibers back to the vertebral column, where the afferent fibers enter the S2-S4 sensory (dorsal root) ganglia followed by the spinal cord.[5]
Pelvis

The course of GVA fibers from organs in the pelvis, in general, depends on the organ's position relative to the pelvic pain line. An organ, or part of an organ, in the pelvis is said to be "above the pelvic pain line" if it is in contact with the peritoneum, except in the case of the large intestine, where the pelvic pain line is said to be located in the middle of the sigmoid colon.[6] GVA fibers from structures above the pain line follow the course of the sympathetic efferent fibers, and GVA fibers from structures below the pain line follow the course of the parasympathetic efferents.[6] Pain from the latter fibers is less likely to be consciously experienced.[6]


References

Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 635. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.
Mehta, Samir et al. Step-Up: A High-Yield, Systems-Based Review for the USMLE Step 1. Baltimore, MD: LWW, 2003.
Susan,, Standring,. Gray's anatomy : the anatomical basis of clinical practice. ISBN 9780702052309. OCLC 920806541.
Moore, K.L., & Agur, A.M. (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy: Third Edition. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 180. ISBN 978-0-7817-6274-8
Moore, Keith; Anne Agur (2007). Essential Clinical Anatomy, Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 220. ISBN 0-7817-6274-X.​

Same source, on the special visceral afferent fibers - uh uh! this one actually mentions the larynx! Maybe this will be my Waterloo, and will provide evidence for the creationist's anatomical assertions?

Special visceral afferent fibers (SVA) are the afferent fibers that develop in association with the gastrointestinal tract.[1] They carry the special senses of smell (olfaction) and taste (gustation). The cranial nerves containing SVA fibers are the olfactory nerve (I), the facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), trigeminal nerve (V) and the vagus nerve (X). The facial nerve receives taste from the anterior two-thirds of the tongue; the glossopharyngeal from the posterior third. SVA fibers in the vagus originate in the larynx and pharynx.[2] The sensory processes, using their primary cell bodies from the inferior ganglion, send projections to the medulla, from which they travel in the tractus solitarius, later terminating at the rostral nucleus solitarius.[3]​

Nope. Just more evidence that the creationist is out of his depth and that his claim of studying anatomy was a farce.

And wiki again on the RLN:

Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia


Now please provide an actual source that shows that motor impulses for vocalizations can be produced anywhere other than the Nucleus ambiguus (which in turn receives inputs from the motor speech area).

Surely you know what that is, what with your keen grasp of the relevant anatomy, right?


Of course, you would have had to understand anatomy enough to know what to search for (e.g., vagus nerve, visceral afferents, etc.) which you obviously do not (and remember that according to you, if something is obvious it must be so). This is why your keyword search technique has, every time I have seen you employ it thus far, ended up making you look foolish for linking to articles that actually undermine your position.


Funny - note that I was easily able to provide sources that actually do support my position, yet the creationist cannot seem to be able to do it ever.


PREDICTION - this will be responded to with first a one or two liner blow off, probably bringing up some ancillary subject, and perhaps later with a tangential link to a creationist essay.

Bets?​

Still waiting:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain. The signal gets there via the RLN in the case of the giraffe."

Please provide evidence that 1. such a neural pathway exists and 2. that is actually functions in the manner you keep asserting.

 

[tas8831]

I still notice you want to avoid a self repair mechanism designed to correct the very process you claim is essential to support your dead theory.....

I can link to the times you have misrepresented or misinterpreted the Grant paper despite having your errors exposed.

Can you link to where I discussed the error correction mechanism?

And more importantly, can you provide evidence that DNA repair proteins were designed?

And have you finally realized that your silly 'hybrization all the way down' folly is a joke? Because everyone else has.

 

[tas8831]

That’s because it’s all they have. When one has no real science to back them up, they tend to devolve into ad hominem attacks.

I guess that explains YOUR posts.

By the way - your obvious ignorance of genetics and science is a RELEVANT characteristic of yours, so demonstrating it and then pointing it out as needed is NOT an ad hominem.


Still waiting for your evidence that all of the "allies" needed to produce ALL dogs were present in the original Dog Kind.

Speaking of dogs - are you prepared to admit that your previous foray in which you attempted to do a keyword-search to prop up your assertions was a total failure and that you didn't actually read (or understand) the content of even the news releases you linked to, much less the actual papers?

Doubt it...

Strangely enough, despite replying several times in that thread (which is actually this thread), you, darn it, just never touched my exposure of your continued ignorance of the subject. Just a coincidence, I guess...

 

[tas8831]

The question is not whether it is better for the nerve to be functional or not, but whether re-routing the nerve would be a better design.

And that should have been the obvious issue. Instead, we get the comical creationist essays about how PERFECT the RNL is, and how it functions perfectly, etc.

 

[tas8831]

To my wiring analogy, the RLN is similar to a 'loop' found in many common electrical circuits. Great design, and economical as well. If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response. Someday you guys will get it.

If only the nervous system actually worked like the wiring in a house.

Will creationists ever get it?

Not if the current crop of dogmatists are any indication.

 

[tas8831]

I read slowly and carefully, digesting information as I go.

And yet.... You still want to believe that the gut or the aorta can make you vocalize via the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

You should give those many references I provided for you a "quick study" for real - you might see why we know your RLN/vocalizations of the gut belief is nonsensical.

 

[tas8831]

What would prove it? A self-repair mechanism designed to correct the very mechanism claimed to be the cause of no intelligent design?

Is this what you were referring to?

What about it?

Let me guess - you think that these enzymes somehow "know" what the 'correct' sequence is supposed to be, seek out errors, and fix them?



1. That is not how they work.
2. Then this pretty much demolishes your whole "junkDNA is mutated original Kind alleles" schtick.

Is it mean of me to love it when creationists undermine their own silly assertions and arguments?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

That’s because it’s all they have. When one has no real science to back them up, they tend to devolve into ad hominem attacks.

When I first joined this site, I posted a LOT of scientific evidences of evolution, it was a really big post that I posted in almost all the top threads.
You know what replies I got? None. Not a single person responded to the scientific slab of evidence I posted, instead replying to cars, proofs, things that laymen can argue about.
I included a lot of scientific language in that post, which is probably the reason no one understood it. After all, who is bothered to know about Gnetales and Cycadofilicales when you can just proclaim a theory to be false and argue using evidences and words a normal person knows (like whether it can be proven, quoting stuff from scriptures, cars, robot penguins, laws not being true in the past). I continued using scientific evidences for a while, but it was pretty clear that nobody here actually knows evolution aside from familiar words like Darwin, Peppered Moth, etc.
So, I though, fight fire with fire. And know I act like a college teacher whose student asked him the IUPAC name of C2H6
Edit: I know people will ask for the post.
There is no evidence for evolutione?
What about the fossils we have found?
Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims

This is the original, I probably posted it a few times with some alterations and adding new info.
Oh, and now I remember. I did get a reply to this. It said that humans are not plants or fungi. Therefore, evolution is false. I tried to explain it, but if I saw the same today, I would say 'What a bunch of bs' because it's easier than explaining each and every word, and the result is the same.


PS: Google won't help you here. Most of the stuff I wrote is not on Wikipedia, it's from scientific books. On the internet, it can probably only be found in scientific journals, and won't be well explained (because it is very basic knowledge)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can link to the times you have misrepresented or misinterpreted the Grant paper despite having your errors exposed.

Except as pointed out in response, they were your simple refusal to accept the truth that breeding is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutations, because it affects several loci at once. You just can’t accept real worl observations because it nullifies your claims of mutation being needed for what breeding does by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude greater.

Can you link to where I discussed the error correction mechanism?

And more importantly, can you provide evidence that DNA repair proteins were designed?

And have you finally realized that your silly 'hybrization all the way down' folly is a joke? Because everyone else has.

Can you show me any repair mechanism that wasn’t designed? It’s made to correct the very thing you want to be your salvation. That’s why you refuse to consider it, because it was made to correct those very mutations you require to be the cause of everything. In evolutionary terms, a self defeating process designed to stop the very thing you claim is the cause of evolution. Devastating to your theory, not that an evolutionist would ever admit it.

 

[tas8831]

Except as pointed out in response, they were your simple refusal to accept the truth that breeding is two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutations, because it affects several loci at once.

And there you go again - same misinterpretation, same misdirection.

You fail to/refuse to/cannot understand that THAT particular passage was referring to that particular group of birds over a narrow range of time - which was explained to you REPEATEDLY - and influenced CONTINUOUS traits - which was also repeatedly explained to you.

The "breeding" you referred to - as was ALSO explained over and over - actually REDUCED the variation in the hybrids.

Interbreeding affects multiple loci because multiple alleles are introduced at once via gene flow - it is NOT the generation of NEW alleles - as was also explained over and over in the links I provided.

Yet here you are, regurgitating the same layman's take on a paper that you keyword searched so long ago and, via the fact that you do not understand the topic enough to interpret the terms used, much less the conclusions drawn, pretending to be vindicated. All because you STILL can't understand the original paper or the underlying concepts.

Why is it so hard for creationists to admit that they were wrong on anything?

 

[tas8831]

When I first joined this site, I posted a LOT of scientific evidences of evolution, it was a really big post that I posted in almost all the top threads.
You know what replies I got? None. Not a single person responded to the scientific slab of evidence I posted, instead replying to cars, proofs, things that laymen can argue about.

That has been my basic experience at every forum/listserve that I have spent time on since the late 1990s. Every now and then, a creationist that has a science background shows up and gives you a run for the money, but even they eventually fall back on 'the bible says so'.

I have encountered some rather interesting tactics along the way - one fellow claimed that no phylogenetic studies had been done using mitochondrial DNA (this was in the late 1990s on the alt.evolution newsgroup). I replied that there had been. He asked to me to provide him with a list of them, which I did. He then basically attacked me for not "explaining" every study I had listed, and dismissed my list out of hand. I replied that if he had asked me to explain them, I would have. He then told me that a REAL teacher like Feynman would have explained it anyway...

Another time, I explained some things to a rather obnoxious creationist on the old ARN forum. He asked why he should believe what I was telling him, asked what my background was. I told him, and he then accused me of trying to 'argue from authority.'

Point is, you can't please them, they will always ALWAYS find a way to weasel out of the truth.

So why do I keep doing it?

I don't know. Maybe for the same reason people slow down to look at car crashes.

 

[tas8831]

Can you show me any repair mechanism that wasn’t designed?

This is why discussing science with you is a waste of time (as if your other antics are not enough) - you insist on using this naive sort of 'argument via colloquial definition.'

You do not understand how these enzymes work (or you might have addressed my request), but since the word "repair" is in their name, you anthropomorphize it.

As I implied, these enzymes do NOT 'know' what the 'correct' sequence is - which is sort of not how repairing things is usually done, right? Can you admit at least that? Never mind - you won't.

But since taking the time to explain things to you has been shown to be a waste of time, I will wait for you to do your usual keyword search followed by claims of vindication (which is what your buddy pshun and OWG try and fail at, too) and just point out your errors and laugh.

 

[tas8831]

Now where was I...

OK - done.

The Case for Junk DNA

PLoS Genet. 2014 May; 10(5): e1004351.
Published online 2014 May 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

The Case for Junk DNA

"...there is an unfortunate tendency for researchers and science writers to proclaim the demise of junk DNA on a regular basis without properly addressing some of the fundamental issues that first led to the rise of the concept."

"By far the dominant type of nongenic DNA are transposable elements (TEs), including various well-described retroelements such as Short and Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements (SINEs and LINEs), endogenous retroviruses, and cut-and-paste DNA transposons. Because of their capacity to increase in copy number, transposable elements have long been described as “parasitic” or “selfish” [22], [23]. However, the vast majority of these elements are inactive in humans, due to a very large fraction being highly degraded by mutation. Due to this degeneracy, estimates of the proportion of the human genome occupied by TEs has varied widely, between one-half and two-thirds."

"Another large fraction of the genome consists of highly repetitive DNA. These regions are extremely variable even amongst individuals of the same population (hence their use as “DNA fingerprints”) and can expand or contract through processes such as unequal crossing over or replication slippage. Many repeats are thought to be derived from truncated TEs, but others consist of tandem arrays of di- and trinucleotides [30]. As with TEs, some highly repetitive sequences play a role in gene regulation (for example, [31]). Others, such as telomeric- and centromeric-associated repeats [32], [33], play critical roles in chromosomal maintenance. Despite this, there is currently no evidence that the majority of highly repetitive elements are functional."

And so on.



We can identify pseudogenes and mutated TEs because enough of their sequence remains intact to see sequence identity with more intact versions.

Thus, it should be a piece of cake for you to find many examples of original Wolf-kind alleles that have been degraded via mutation (which you claim does not exist... or something) in dog genomes.

Can't wait!

Maybe you can ask Jeff Tomkins to look into it - maybe he can take a break from nitpicking real science (and getting exposed as being deceptive) and actually try to find support for YECism.



See above.

Waiting for your supporting evidence that counters what we know.


I am aware that this is what ancient superstitious numerologists wrote, yes.


How do we "understand" that given what the bible actually says?



I already debunked this ignorance - more than once - but I thought I would pull up some refutations from the previous times he's made these silly claims - I should also point out that others have also explained his errors to him.


Please understand that the above quote is what justa interprets to mean that the Grants declared that hybridization CREATES new alleles, as opposed to what anyone that understands basic genetics will see - that hybridization merely INTRODUCES new alleles into a different population. Hybridization does NOT 'create' new alleles. Why creationists cannot understand this is a most interesting phenomenon.

I should also point out that when I had debunked this claim before, I also pointed out that the paper he chose to cite to prop up his unfounded claims also contained a devastating rebuke for his claim that all extant diversity arises from hybriodization:


" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."

Sort of blows the whole Asians arose via hybridization (between which populations? He never says) thing out of the water - hybridization, according to justa's own citation, DECREASES variation, it does not create it.

Love that unwitting projection.
Hilarious, for many reasons.

Thank you so much for the lesson in genetics! But, please tell me what does "DIVERGED" mean in your quote?

Are you claiming that DIVERGENCE is produced by hybridization?

If so, who hybridized with who to get the 'modern gray wolf' FROM the extinct european wolf?

You don't understand the material well enough to see how you keep contradicting yourself, that is true.

The mixing of alleles sure is important - but you continue to simply ignore a simple fact - those alleles don't just pop out of nowhere, and they are NOT produced via hybridization (though I do detect the groundwork for a "I knew it all along" escape/defense at some point - pity that your old posts will be there to embarrass you for some time).


Wow... OK...


Interbreeding gave us Asians and Africans.

But in the post I am responding to (and all of your previous posts on this subject), all you can seem to 'document' is a homogenization of forms via hybridization (from the Grant paper). Your ignorance of genetics and populations and such informed you that because they found hybridization was more important locally in the short term that new alleles produced via mutation were, that ALL variation must be produced that way - but once you got your money quote, you stopped reading (or couldn't understand any other parts), like where they explained that the hybrids exhibited LESS diversity.

So, in the Grant paper, what you fail to grasp, is that the individual species that interbred had to come from somewhere - they came from a long-term acquisition of NEW alleles, and the more recent rounds of hybridization were due to rapid changes in habitat.

Another quote from the paper that I pointed out to you before that fell on deaf ears:


“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”


Do you know what a continuous trait is?

A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.

Enough of the Grant misinterpretations - this page from another thread:

Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

contains some of my previous rebuttals to justa's silly misinterpretations and such, no need to reinvent the wheel.



Ok, wow... UM...


A phylogenetic analysis does NOT seek to find the mutated alleles of the original kind...

My gosh...

I mean, did you even look at the picture on that webpage? No wolves were even in the analysis!

Did you bother to click the link to see the actual scientific paper? Of course not! More in a moment...

LOL!!

Um.. No - 1. that cladogram only referred to modern domestic dog breeds, not ALL canids.
2. The root of the tree is unlabeled, so you cannot even claim that it 'goes back to 2'.

Also - I do enjoy demonstrating that you do not even read, much less understand, the things you reference.

If you had actually read the paper, you would have seen:


"Our analyses were designed to detect recent admixture; therefore, we were able to identify hybridization events that are described in written breed histories and stud-book records. Using the most reliably dated crosses that produced modern breeds, we established a linear relationship between the total length of haplotype sharing and the age of an admixture event, occurring between 35 and 160 years before present (ybp) "

So unless you think all dogs 'hybridized' away from a single species (impossible!) of wolf in 160 years... Well, never mind. Suffice it to say this is a huge fail on your part.

But I digress.


Ok - I need to copy paste this line from justa here again:

"By golly, look how they all lead backwards to just two.................... Oh my, imagine that, but you shouldn't have to imagine, you were already told that."

Keep that in mind for a second - he says it traces back to just 2 -


So is it "just two" or "a group"?

And 40,000 years ago? Oh, right - this is where you accept the part that you misinterpret to support your claim but reject the parts that don't.


Great.

And?

From the actual research paper that press release was based on:

"By calibrating the mutation rate using our oldest dog, we narrow the timing of dog domestication to 20,000–40,000 years ago. "

Mutation rate? What?

UH-OH:

"Furthermore, we detect an additional ancestry component in the End Neolithic sample, consistent with admixture from a population of dogs located further east that may have migrated concomitant with steppe people associated with Late Neolithic and Early Bronze age cultures, such as the Yamnaya and Corded Ware culture."

So much for that "single wolf kind" magically diversifying via hybridization with... itself.. to magically create diversity by somehow mixing up its already present alleles...

Unless you want to posit at least 2 creation events of the original dog-kind?

And it gets worse for you, pally:


"Our results are consistent with continuity of a European-like genetic ancestry from modern dogs through the entire Neolithic period. However, the slightly displaced position of the ancient samples from the European cluster in the PCAs (particularly for CTC) suggests a complex history. We therefore performed unsupervised clustering analyses with ADMIXTURE (SNP array data; Supplementary Fig. 15) and NGSadmix (whole-genome data; Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 16) (Supplementary Note 9) and found that, unlike contemporary European village dogs, all three ancient genomes possess a significant ancestry component that is present in modern Southeast Asian dogs. This component appears only at very low levels in a minority of modern European village dogs. Furthermore, CTC harbours an additional component that is found predominantly in modern Indian village as well as in Central Asian (Afghan, Mongolian and Nepalese), and Middle Eastern (Saudi Arabian and Qatari) dogs (concordant with its position in the PCA), as well as some wolf admixture."

So, sure, MODERN European dog breeds can be traced back to a GROUP of dogs, but ALL MODERN dogs show a MIXTURE of genetic inputs from multiple earlier dog populations.


Looks like it is back to the drawing board for your "hybridization all the way down" farce.

I also suggest you stop relying on press releases, and even more strongly suggest you stop pretending to make scientific arguments until after you take a few years-worth of college classes on the relevant science.


MASSIVE FAIL.








Pity that your 'references' completely contradict your layman's conclusion.

The saddest part is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is so powerful in you that you will actually think you somehow proved your point and DIDN'T, yet again, make a fool of yourself.

And he never did - but he DID move on to a whole new topic to embarrass himself on!

 

[tas8831]

Holy moly! Justa has been posting this 'Asian only produces Asian' crap since at least 2016????!!!!

Amazing...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When I first joined this site, I posted a LOT of scientific evidences of evolution, it was a really big post that I posted in almost all the top threads.
You know what replies I got? None. Not a single person responded to the scientific slab of evidence I posted, instead replying to cars, proofs, things that laymen can argue about.
I included a lot of scientific language in that post, which is probably the reason no one understood it. After all, who is bothered to know about Gnetales and Cycadofilicales when you can just proclaim a theory to be false and argue using evidences and words a normal person knows (like whether it can be proven, quoting stuff from scriptures, cars, robot penguins, laws not being true in the past). I continued using scientific evidences for a while, but it was pretty clear that nobody here actually knows evolution aside from familiar words like Darwin, Peppered Moth, etc.
So, I though, fight fire with fire. And know I act like a college teacher whose student asked him the IUPAC name of C2H6
Edit: I know people will ask for the post.
There is no evidence for evolutione?
What about the fossils we have found?
Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims

This is the original, I probably posted it a few times with some alterations and adding new info.
Oh, and now I remember. I did get a reply to this. It said that humans are not plants or fungi. Therefore, evolution is false. I tried to explain it, but if I saw the same today, I would say 'What a bunch of bs' because it's easier than explaining each and every word, and the result is the same.


PS: Google won't help you here. Most of the stuff I wrote is not on Wikipedia, it's from scientific books. On the internet, it can probably only be found in scientific journals, and won't be well explained (because it is very basic knowledge)

It's difficult for creationists to argue with evolutionists because it's difficult to get answers to the questions that we have. For example is it possible to diagram an evolutionary change, including everything that must be in place, or take place, for even a small change to occur? Since these small changes (perhaps down to the molecular level) are the basis of evolution, is there a comprehensive explanation for them? It just seems that evolution is a sudden inexplicable (and almost always fortuitous) change that must include thousands of other minute changes to accomplish. It's like a switch gets tripped and thousands of biological processes 'cascade' into action resulting in a successful change, like an intricate setup of thousands of dominos falling in order when the first one is tripped.

Multiply this event by the uncountable trillions that must successfully occur over time in order to produce the global biosphere/ecosystem that we see today, all from a simple microscopic organism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I still notice you want to avoid a self repair mechanism designed to correct the very process you claim is essential to support your dead theory.....

Dude, did you check out my Triops evolution experiment thread? I got an individual that was 5 cm in length. That's a full centimeter longer than any individual from the previous generations. Where'd that trait come from when there wasn't a single individual to inherit it from? Triops lay hundreds of eggs over their lifetime, and I make an effort to hatch every egg I can, so it is statistically impossible for this to be the result of a recessive gene not being expressed for generations. Especially considering that they are self-fertilizing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

For example is it possible to diagram an evolutionary change, including everything that must be in place, or take place, for even a small change to occur?

To an extent. We can't determine every possible pathway by which a trait can develop, but we can determine, to an extent, the pathways which have already been taken. How big the change is tends to be determined more by the function of the gene being affected by a mutation rather than the scope of the mutation itself (a single base pair mutation on a HOX gene, the group of genes responsible for producing bilateral symmetry through embryonic development, is usually deadly and results in extreme bodily deformity in the cases in which the organism doesn't die. A single base pair mutation on one of the genes for skin color may result in an individual being mildly darker or lighter in skin tone).

Since these small changes (perhaps down to the molecular level) are the basis of evolution, is there a comprehensive explanation for them?

Are you asking why mutations happen? That's a simple question to answer; environmental interactions and imperfections in cell DNA replication and repair are why mutations occur. These problems are impossible to avoid, so mutation is also an inevitability. Also, it is on a molecular level. DNA is a molecule.

It just seems that evolution is a sudden inexplicable (and almost always fortuitous) change that must include thousands of other minute changes to accomplish.

Not exactly. Mutations are far more commonly detrimental than benign. It's just that traits which are beneficial to survival and reproduction are more likely to persist and become common in populations than ones which make an organism likely to die or unlikely to mate. Heck, reproduction is the more important of the two; did you honestly think the colorful plumage of a peacock benefited survival? It doesn't, it's just that the females refuse to mate with males that aren't colorful, so those genes, despite being objectively better for survival, don't get passed down.

By an large, the majority of organisms go extinct when their environments change a lot rather than persisting. It isn't that everything "gets beneficial evolution", but rather, only species which have individuals capable of adapting to the new environment persist despite the changes. And that group is in the minority.

It's like a switch gets tripped and thousands of biological processes 'cascade' into action resulting in a successful change, like an intricate setup of thousands of dominos falling in order when the first one is tripped.

Nah, the preceding changes usually have effects that benefit survival/reproduction, though they may be more minor than a mutation that comes later and interacts with the previous ones. For example, in the decades long E. coli evolution experiment, the sequence of mutations which resulted in one population being able to efficiently digest citrate included initial mutations which made the bacteria able to digest citrate a little, with sequential mutations that improved that capacity being favored in the artificial environment of the experiment (it was high in citrate). Every individual which was better at digesting citrate than the rest had an advantage in reproducing, since they had access to a more prevalent food source. One mutation down the line made the bacteria much better at digesting citrate, with more improvement than any of the previous mutations, but that doesn't mean that the previous mutations didn't do anything.

Multiply this event by the uncountable trillions that must successfully occur over time in order to produce the global biosphere/ecosystem that we see today, all from a simple microscopic organism.

This is like a couple that had 13 boys thinking that it is super improbable for their next child to be a boy, because the probability of having 14 boys in a row is about 0.006%. But, this couple would be wrong in thinking that's the situation they have, because they have already had 13 boys. Individually, the chances of having a body each time was 50%, and this probability is entirely independent of the gender of the previous children. Therefore, the probability that the next child will also be a boy is 50%, not 0.006%.

Trying to apply probability to life on this planet is equally silly, because you are multiplying the probabilites of events that have already happened. If you go back far enough, any event shall seem improbable that way.

 

[pshun2404]

Dude, did you check out my Triops evolution experiment thread? I got an individual that was 5 cm in length. That's a full centimeter longer than any individual from the previous generations. Where'd that trait come from when there wasn't a single individual to inherit it from? Triops lay hundreds of eggs over their lifetime, and I make an effort to hatch every egg I can, so it is statistically impossible for this to be the result of a recessive gene not being expressed for generations. Especially considering that they are self-fertilizing.

Still Triops right?