ERVs and how Evolutionists bluff with the data

[lifepsyop]

The more you study the claims of Evolutionists, the more you realize they are based on simple ignorance of the data, or willing exaggeration/fabrication of it. The popular acceptance of Evolution Theory/Common Descent rests primarily on a sort of game of Chinese Whispers. These believers congregate and constantly spread rumors to each other and outsiders that "All the evidence points to Common Descent"... It doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as the mythology is kept at the forefront of discourse.

I myself have dismantled Evolutionists' arguments over and over again, yet for every one of my posts, there are a thousand Evolutionists preaching the gospel of Darwinian mysticism, totally unchecked. Rational discourse will always get drowned out by a steady stream of bald assertions and bull-horning. With the exception of the couple of evolutionists that want to carefully discuss the data, you have a legion of others that will simply hand-wave, shout you down, and continue on with their daily Evo myth-making. That is the way the Evolution debate has gone since its inception.

Here again, I present an example of how, contrary to the claim of the evo-mystics, the molecular data continues to fight Evolutionary mythology.

Evolutionists love to show you their cherry-picked primate studies where Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs), which are transposable elements claimed to be clear markers of common descent.

What they don't like is when you show them the same types of transposable markers contradict any sensible attempts at establishing such evolutionary relationships. A new study of birds reveals such discordance.

The Dynamics of Incomplete Lineage Sorting across the Ancient Adaptive Radiation of Neoavian Birds 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002224

"...We reconstructed the genealogical fates of thousands of rare genomic changes (insertions of selfish mobile elements called retrotransposons), a third of which were found to be affected by a phenomenon known as incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), namely a persistence of polymorphisms across multiple successive speciation events. Astoundingly, we found that near the K-Pg boundary, speciation events were accompanied by extreme levels of ILS, suggesting a near-simultaneous, star-like diversification process that appears plausible in the context of instantaneous niche availability that must have followed the K-Pg mass extinction....

Here we show that genome-level analyses of 2,118 retrotransposon presence/absence markers converge at a largely consistent Neoaves phylogeny and detect a highly differential temporal prevalence of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), i.e., the persistence of ancestral genetic variation as polymorphisms during speciation events. We found that ILS-derived incongruences are spread over the genome and involve 35% and 34% of the analyzed loci on the autosomes and the Z chromosome, respectively. Surprisingly, Neoaves diversification comprises three adaptive radiations, an initial near-K-Pg super-radiation with highly discordant phylogenetic signals from near-simultaneous speciation events..."

In case you didn't know, "Incomplete Lineage Sorting" is evolutionist code for "Data that contradicts any pattern of Common Ancestry"

The circled numbers at the branching nodes shows the varying level of phylogenetic conflict, i.e. ERV-like markers that contradict any discernible pattern of evolutionary progression. The data actually fights Evolution, but they will never come clean to the general public about this. They shroud such findings behind a wall of jargon and continue to pump out daily Pop-Sci articles regurgitating the myth that "all of the molecular data overwhelmingly points to Universal Common Ancestry."

The Evolutionist wants you to believe that those branching nodes represent "common ancestors". Not only are their common ancestors completely imaginary, but the molecular data that evolutionists consider most important runs directly counter to those assertions.

These are not the "tips of branches" (as Evolutionists are quick to claim when their tree patterns begin to collapse), but supposed representations of tens of millions of years of major variation with bird groups.

Another example I've previously shown is the supposed evolutionary relationships between all Placental Mammal groups. Even with animal groups this diverse, a construction of evolutionary relationships totally collapses in perpetual contradiction when examining the same types of ERV-like elements.

Evolutionists must resort to completely non-falsifiable tales of these fantasy common ancestral populations mixing in with each other millions and millions of years ago to produce the totally contradictory molecular patterns.

"To resolve the placental origin controversy we extracted ∼2 million potentially phylogenetically informative, retroposon-containing loci from representatives of the major placental mammalian lineages and found highly significant evidence challenging all current single hypotheses of their basal origin."

Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals 2009
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/


When I demonstrate these things, the evolutionists howl that this doesn't disprove Common Descent. Indeed, much worse, it demonstrates how such data is meaningless in its potential to either prove or disprove evolutionary claims.

1. If the data fits a preferred evolutionary story, then Evolution did it.
2. If the data contradicts a preferred evolutionary story, then Evolution did it.

That's it. That's how the game works. Then these Evo myth-makers sit back and demand that you disprove their "theory", after they've just claimed both Heads and Tails as evidence for their side.

Once you unlock this central mystery concealed by the Church of Evolution, you will be ale to see past all of their false claims of scientific rigor.

 

[crjmurray]

The more you study the claims of Evolutionists, the more you realize they are based on simple ignorance of the data, or willing exaggeration/fabrication of it.

Do you have any formal education or experience in a field that allows you to make such a statement? Do you have evidence of this conspiracy you speak of? If not then the rest of this is just nonsense.

 

[lasthero]

I myself have dismantled Evolutionists' arguments over and over again

Really? Where?

Because it wasn't on this forum.

 

[lifepsyop]

Do you have any formal education or experience in a field that allows you to make such a statement? Do you have evidence of this conspiracy you speak of? If not then the rest of this is just nonsense.

Typical non-response. I don't understand, if you have nothing to say, then why bother posting?

 

[SteveB28]

Will you be receiving your Nobel Prize any time soon?

Oh, but you won't accept it, will you? That would mean becoming part of the world-wide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, wouldn't it?

And you would be far too honourable for that, yes?

 

[lifepsyop]

Will you be receiving your Nobel Prize any time soon?

Oh, but you won't accept it, will you? That would mean becoming part of the world-wide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, wouldn't it?

And you would be far too honourable for that, yes?

I don't think you even know what a conspiracy is.

There is nothing secret or hidden about the Evolutionists' ideological commitment to the Evolutionary creation mythology. They are quite upfront about the fact that no matter where the data leads, Common Descent will not be questioned.

Try harder with your strawmen arguments. I won't hold my breath for you actually responding to the material in the OP.

 

[SteveB28]

I don't think you even know what a conspiracy is.

There is nothing secret or hidden about the Evolutionists' ideological commitment to the Evolutionary creation mythology. They are quite upfront about the fact that no matter where the data leads, Common Descent will not be questioned.

Try harder with your strawmen arguments. I won't hold my breath for you actually responding to the material in the OP.

Oh, so you will be off to Stockholm?

 

[lifepsyop]

Really? Where?

Because it wasn't on this forum.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-the-nested-hierarchy-of-common-descent.7892752/

This one is a good read. You will see that evolutionists are unable to form a coherent argument demonstrating the most basic evolutionary concepts such as Homology. As always, Universal Common Ancestry never rises above the level of assumption/imagination.

If only more people were aware of how much the "theory" of Evolution is based on bluff.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

This is a Gish Gallop. You should be submitting this to professionals in the field of Biology, not a forum. If you think you can falsify Evolution, then you should write a paper and submit it for peer review. Science wants to be proved wrong. It strives for a better understanding of the natural world. The theory is falsifiable. If you were to find a transitional fossil in a layer of rock where it shouldn't be, you would change the world. You'd win a Nobel Prize and be remembered forever. What would millions of scientists of many different cultures have to gain from hiding anything? It doesn't make any claims against God, it only explains the natural world. The understanding of the theory is very important when it comes to medical research. Also, you mentioned a couple posts up "Creation mythology". Evolution is not about the origin of life, it's the origin of species. You are confusing that with abiogenesis, a completely different study.

 

[lifepsyop]

This is a Gish Gallop.

"Gish Gallop" (as Evolutionists define it) is a method of overwhelming an opponent with many different points so that he doesn't have time to respond to each one. However, I've put forth a single concise and specific argument. Clearly, this is a very clumsy strawman attempted by JonFromMinnesota.

Is it really that hard to form a substantive response? You are the fourth poster in a row that has attempted to hand-wave the subject matter away rather than address it. It seems like it makes you uncomfortable. You can't present a counter-argument but you've still got to get a jab in.

You should be submitting this to professionals in the field of Biology, not a forum. If you think you can falsify Evolution, then you should write a paper and submit it for peer review. Science wants to be proved wrong. It strives for a better understanding of the natural world. The theory is falsifiable. If you were to find a transitional fossil in a layer of rock where it shouldn't be, you would change the world. You'd win a Nobel Prize and be remembered forever. What would millions of scientists of many different cultures have to gain from hiding anything? It doesn't make any claims against God, it only explains the natural world. The understanding of the theory is very important when it comes to medical research. Also, you mentioned a couple posts up "Creation mythology". Evolution is not about the origin of life, it's the origin of species. You are confusing that with abiogenesis, a completely different study.

Does this tirade attempt to address any points raised in the OP? No, I didn't think so. I think I'll avoid being led down a rabbit trail for now, since this type of distraction is the #1 technique used by evolutionists when they can't muster a counter-argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have any formal education or experience in a field that allows you to make such a statement? Do you have evidence of this conspiracy you speak of? If not then the rest of this is just nonsense.

It is nonsense, but observing the psychological gymnastics, is entertaining.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

"Gish Gallop" (as Evolutionists define it) is a method of overwhelming an opponent with many different points so that he doesn't have time to respond to each one. However, I've put forth a single concise and specific argument. Clearly, this is a very clumsy strawman attempted by JonFromMinnesota.

Is it really that hard to form a substantive response? You are the fourth poster in a row that has attempted to hand-wave the subject matter away rather than address it. It seems like it makes you uncomfortable. You can't present a counter-argument but you've still got to get a jab in.



Does this tirade attempt to address any points raised in the OP? No, I didn't think so. I think I'll avoid being led down a rabbit trail for now, since this type of distraction is the #1 technique used by evolutionists when they can't muster a counter-argument.

Gish Gallop is not an evolutionary definition, it's universal. "A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints"

1. Your first paragraph is an unwarranted assumption. First, common descent is not a hypothesis of evolution, it is simply a fact that is confirmed through observational and testable data to support the first hypothesis of evolution (All living things on Earth are related). Why are you using the term 'Chinese Whispers'? A game of telephone is one statement turning into something entirely different through different interpretations by the people receiving the message. Scientists who have studied the theory all come to the same conclusion based on the evidence that is available. How is this a game of telephone?

2. You've dismantled Evolutionists? So you're actually taken this study to a qualified biologist who has spent their life studying their field? You then misuse the term "gospel". Evolution makes no claims for or against God. It only explains the natural world. It doesn't go unchecked. It is rigorously peer reviewed. Publishing something unchecked by your peers is career suicide for scientists. You will lose all credibility if you publish something that isn't true without any peer review of your work.

3. Now lets examine the study that you posted above. I understand it is a recently published journal. An interesting one too. However, it is not an attempt to falsify evolution. It is a study showing incomplete lineage in Neoavian birds. However, you failed to provide the explanation Evolution has for incomplete lineage. Let's address that with an explanation from The Biologos Forum- Science and Faith in Dialogue. I will provide some copy/pasted parts of this article and then link the rest of it for you below.

"One consequence of speciation being a population event is that populations have genetic diversity – not all members of the population are genetically identical. For any particular gene, then, a population may have several slightly different forms present within it. These different forms are called alleles".

"Imagine that the ancestral population of all three species (the 1,2,3 common ancestor) has four alleles of a certain gene. These alleles originally arose due to a single mutational difference during DNA copying. Once there is a difference in place, two alleles can go on to acquire other differences over time, again, through copying errors. As a result, alleles can be compared to each other, just like species. Alleles that are recently separated will have more similarities in common, and alleles that have been separate for longer will have acquired more differences".

"The fact that gene phylogenies/trees and species phylogenies/trees don’t always match is not something that surprises scientists, since it is a well-known phenomenon and the mechanisms underlying it are understood: species arise from genetically diverse populations and that diversity does not always sort completely down to every descendant species. Discordant phylogenies, however, are commonly used among Christians as a means to cast doubt on to common ancestry and/or evolutionary biology as a whole".

"The availability of the orangutan genome allowed researchers to scan the human genome for locations where humans are more similar to orangutans than to chimps. These regions are rare in the human genome, and very short in length. Indeed, the researchers found a pattern: chromosome segments in humans most often match chimpanzees, and do so for thousands of nucleotide base pairs at a time, on average. Those regions that match orangutans are tiny (on average less than 100 base pairs) and rare. This is exactly what one expects from the species tree: humans and chimps are much more likely to have gene trees in common, since they more recently shared a common ancestral population (around 4-5 million years ago). Humans and orangutans, on the other hand, haven’t shared a common ancestral population in about 10 million years or more, meaning that it is much less likely for any given human allele to more closely match an orangutan allele".

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-speciation-and-incomplete-lineage-sorting

So, while the study you posted is interesting, it is not making an attempt to falsify evolution. It is simply a study explaining incomplete lineage from neovian birds. Science has a detailed explanation as to why this happens among many species. I left a short summary above along with a link to the entire explanation.

What you are doing is simply quote mining, thinking you are pointing out a weakness in a theory. When this 'weakness' has already been explained. You are also submitting it to a forum where I would imagine most are not professionals in the study of Biology. (I'm not either but I can certainly research your claim).

 

[lifepsyop]

1. Your first paragraph is an unwarranted assumption. First, common descent is not a hypothesis of evolution, it is simply a fact that is confirmed through observational and testable data to support the first hypothesis of evolution (All living things on Earth are related).

Nothing but the usual assumptions stated as "fact" here. You *know* Common Descent is true because you *know* "everything is related".

...Evolution makes no claims for or against God. It only explains the natural world. It doesn't go unchecked. It is rigorously peer reviewed. Publishing something unchecked by your peers is career suicide for scientists. You will lose all credibility if you publish something that isn't true without any peer review of your work.

Ridiculous. The effectiveness of "Peer-review" is just one more piece of mythology cooked up by people like yourself. It is a perfect example of how you attempt to win the debate by wildly exaggerating claims. Peer-review is not "rigorous" whatsoever.

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet.

There are many other such testimonials. The idea that subjective interests are effectively weeded out with a peer-review system is extremely naive. How sad this peer-review mythology lives on in the minds of atheists and evolutionists, who are unable to look at such systems honestly because it would go against their narrative.

3. Now lets examine the study that you posted above. I understand it is a recently published journal. An interesting one too. However, it is not an attempt to falsify evolution.

No kidding. I never implied that it was. You are mischaracterizing my argument from the start.

It is a study showing incomplete lineage in Neoavian birds. However, you failed to provide the explanation Evolution has for incomplete lineage.

Let's address that with an explanation from The Biologos Forum- Science and Faith in Dialogue. I will provide some copy/pasted parts of this article and then link the rest of it for you below.

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-speciation-and-incomplete-lineage-sorting

Yes, that should be helpful for other readers. Thank you.

Here's Churakov et al's depiction of such events that led to totally contradictory phylogeny of placental mammals.

"We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species."

Since you seem to have interest in this subject, JonFromMinnesota, why don't you take the above quote and ask yourself what it wouldn't explain.

Such a claim, essentially: "We believe a bunch of severe population interactions that happened a long time ago wreaked havoc on the phylogenetic signal", is non-falsifiable, and could be (and is) invoked to explain extreme discordance across the spectrum of biodiversity.

So, while the study you posted is interesting, it is not making an attempt to falsify evolution. It is simply a study explaining incomplete lineage from neovian birds. Science has a detailed explanation as to why this happens among many species. I left a short summary above along with a link to the entire explanation.

Predictably, you have attacked a strawman. I never implied it was an attempt to 'falsify evolution', or that ILS wasn't explainable. As I stated in the OP:

'When I demonstrate these things, the evolutionists howl that this doesn't disprove Common Descent. Indeed, much worse, it demonstrates how such data is meaningless in its potential to either prove or disprove evolutionary claims.'

No, incomplete lineage sorting does not falsify evolution. But such explanations, (especially when taken to the extreme if the above referenced studies) clearly demonstrate that evolutionists are working within a theoretical framework whereby extreme levels of phylogenetic discordance can still be accommodated.

A. If the data fits the predictions of evolutionary relationships, then credit the theory.
B. If the data contradicts the predictions of evolutionary relationships, then blame ancient lineage sorting events.

That's the game. Even when the data doesn't fit, it still fits. The amorphous fog of Evolution absorbs it all. If the general public understood that, then your theory would be toast.

But evolutionists will continue to surround themselves with and perpetuate the myth that the molecular data neatly fit into precise evolutionary predictions. Nothing but a fantasy.

What you are doing is simply quote mining, thinking you are pointing out a weakness in a theory. When this 'weakness' has already been explained. You are also submitting it to a forum where I would imagine most are not professionals in the study of Biology. (I'm not either but I can certainly research your claim).

To sum up, your counter-argument is premised on the incorrect notion that I've claimed there is no explanation for the data.

To the contrary, the explanation is the weakness to the theory, as I've shown above. A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nothing but the usual assumptions stated as "fact" here. You *know* Common Descent is true because you *know* "everything is related".




Ridiculous. The effectiveness of "Peer-review" is just one more piece of mythology cooked up by people like yourself. It is a perfect example of how you attempt to win the debate by wildly exaggerating claims. Peer-review is not "rigorous" whatsoever.

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet.

There are many other such testimonials. The idea that subjective interests are effectively weeded out with a peer-review system is extremely naive. How sad this peer-review mythology lives on in the minds of atheists and evolutionists, who are unable to look at such systems honestly because it would go against their narrative.




No kidding. I never implied that it was. You are mischaracterizing my argument from the start.



Yes, that should be helpful for other readers. Thank you.

Here's Churakov et al's depiction of such events that led to totally contradictory phylogeny of placental mammals.

"We believe that the most parsimonious interpretation of the current data is that the ancestral placental populations were characterized by severe ancestral subdivisions and rejoinings, leading to a complex mosaic of phylogenetic relationships in recent species."

Since you seem to have interest in this subject, JonFromMinnesota, why don't you take the above quote and ask yourself what it wouldn't explain.

Such a claim, essentially: "We believe a bunch of severe population interactions that happened a long time ago wreaked havoc on the phylogenetic signal", is non-falsifiable, and could be (and is) invoked to explain extreme discordance across the spectrum of biodiversity.



Predictably, you have attacked a strawman. I never implied it was an attempt to 'falsify evolution', or that ILS wasn't explainable. As I stated in the OP:

'When I demonstrate these things, the evolutionists howl that this doesn't disprove Common Descent. Indeed, much worse, it demonstrates how such data is meaningless in its potential to either prove or disprove evolutionary claims.'

No, incomplete lineage sorting does not falsify evolution. But such explanations, (especially when taken to the extreme if the above referenced studies) clearly demonstrate that evolutionists are working within a theoretical framework whereby extreme levels of phylogenetic discordance can still be accommodated.

A. If the data fits the predictions of evolutionary relationships, then credit the theory.
B. If the data contradicts the predictions of evolutionary relationships, then blame ancient lineage sorting events.

That's the game. Even when the data doesn't fit, it still fits. The amorphous fog of Evolution absorbs it all. If the general public understood that, then your theory would be toast.

But evolutionists will continue to surround themselves with and perpetuate the myth that the molecular data neatly fit into precise evolutionary predictions. Nothing but a fantasy.



To sum up, your counter-argument is premised on the incorrect notion that I've claimed there is no explanation for the data.

To the contrary, the explanation is the weakness to the theory, as I've shown above. A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

1. Again, common ancestry is not an assumption. It is confirmed through observational, repeatable, testable and predictable data. The inconsistent lineage is explained.

2. You're arguing from authority by quoting Richard Horton. It is also a quote mine. He is speaking about The Lancet and it's controversy of exploiting medical findings for political warfare against Israel. Many other testimonials? Perhaps from one of his colleagues that shares his thoughts on the peer review process in The Lancet. You're claiming that thousands and thousands of scientists are apart of a world wide conspiracy. Please explain, what would they have to gain from a conspiracy.

3. You actually did imply yourself that you have dismantled the theory in your first post. "I myself have dismantled Evolution arguments over and over and over again" then proceeded to post a scientific journal explaining the inconsistent lineage which....has been explained. You're being intellectually dishonest. My argument is not attacking a strawman. You went on and on about "Evolutionary myth, look at this study!" And I simple gave an explanation to your misunderstanding.

4. Responding to your quote of "We believe" is not saying "it is confirmed". It is a hypothesis.

5. Please demonstrate how the study of evolution predicts that the lineage will be perfect? They don't. In fact, it doesn't surprise them at all that it isn't. It isn't a weakness to the theory at all. When Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species" he too had doubts and questions. Specifically to the eye and the fossil record. You could have went on about how "This is a weakness!" Even though those questions have long been explained, adding to the credibility of the theory. You're simply trying to move the goal posts and argue from ignorance. "I don't understand this, therefore it's a myth!"

5. Again, I ask you, what would scientists have to gain from making something like this up? If you think peer review is a sham, then why hasn't the abiogenesis hypothesis that hydrothermic vents in the ocean can spontaneously create life been accepted as a theory? Because it has not been demonstrated to be true. Therefore, just a hypothesis.

 

[lifepsyop]

1. Again, common ancestry is not an assumption. It is confirmed through observational, repeatable, testable and predictable data. The inconsistent lineage is explained.

Common Ancestry is primarily based on the assumption that it is true with little support in the way of evidence. It has certainly never been "confirmed" in any sense.

2. You're arguing from authority by quoting Richard Horton.

Better than arguing from unfounded rumor like your bald assertion of peer-review's effectiveness.

It is also a quote mine. He is speaking about The Lancet and it's controversy of exploiting medical findings for political warfare against Israel.

It's a statement about the scientific peer-review system's inability to overcome interested parties. How is that a "quote mine" ?

Many other testimonials? Perhaps from one of his colleagues that shares his thoughts on the peer review process in The Lancet.

"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Associationand organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication

and then an actual study on the Peer-Review system...

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Smith 2006 Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'.

...Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this...

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

Conclusion:
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

You're claiming that thousands and thousands of scientists are apart of a world wide conspiracy. Please explain, what would they have to gain from a conspiracy.

What is it with you guys constantly ranting about world-wide conspiracies? It's like you can't fathom the idea that academics have ideological commitments. Very strange.

5. Please demonstrate how the study of evolution predicts that the lineage will be perfect? They don't.

Good. With this in mind, can you please explain how the apparent phylogenetic concordance of Primate ERVs is specifically predicted by Evolution theory?

This data is loudly sold as a successful prediction of Evolution theory, yet you yourself admit that the pattern could be in disarray and still be a fulfillment of Evolution theory's "predictions", (due to incomplete lineage sorting). Now are you starting to see the problem?

Evolution predicts both concordance and discordance. Therefore, from a heuristic point of view it is nearly useless.

But more importantly, it demonstrates the exaggeration/error of evolutionists' claims that Evolution "is confirmed through observational, repeatable, testable and predictable data."

You may as well confirm that someone is a psychic because they can predict that a penny will land on either heads or tails. But this type of thing is sold as 'science' to an unsuspecting public.

5. Again, I ask you, what would scientists have to gain from making something like this up?

It's not about "making something up", Evolution is simply the reigning metaphysical paradigm of the academic institution. Regardless of data, it has been agreed upon that life can only be interpreted through the lens of Common Ancestry.

It is similar in the way that cosmology is only to be interpreted through the Copernican principle, i.e. that the Earth does not occupy a preferential region of the universe. There is little to no evidence that such a position is actually true, yet it has still been entrenched as unquestionable metaphysics.

If you think peer review is a sham, then why hasn't the abiogenesis hypothesis that hydrothermic vents in the ocean can spontaneously create life been accepted as a theory? Because it has not been demonstrated to be true. Therefore, just a hypothesis.

If the mainstream scientific community is driven purely by the data, then why isn't there any consideration at all to asking the question of whether or not naturalistic abiogenesis happened in the first place?

As with Common Descent, to question abiogenesis itself is forbidden. 'Scientists' are only permitted to ask HOW, but never IF abiogenesis occurred. To question IF abiogenesis occurred is to question the underlying Evolutionary Creation story of nature descending from different forms of nature. Thus, the question is a blasphemy and completely off limits.

Strange behavior for people who claim to be unhindered by personal ideology.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Common Ancestry is primarily based on the assumption that it is true with little support in the way of evidence. It has certainly never been "confirmed" in any sense.



Better than arguing from unfounded rumor like your bald assertion of peer-review's effectiveness.



It's a statement about the scientific peer-review system's inability to overcome interested parties. How is that a "quote mine" ?



"There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Associationand organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication

and then an actual study on the Peer-Review system...

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Smith 2006 Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'.

...Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this...

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

Conclusion:
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."




What is it with you guys constantly ranting about world-wide conspiracies? It's like you can't fathom the idea that academics have ideological commitments. Very strange.



Good. With this in mind, can you please explain how the apparent phylogenetic concordance of Primate ERVs is specifically predicted by Evolution theory?

This data is loudly sold as a successful prediction of Evolution theory, yet you yourself admit that the pattern could be in disarray and still be a fulfillment of Evolution theory's "predictions", (due to incomplete lineage sorting). Now are you starting to see the problem?

Evolution predicts both concordance and discordance. Therefore, from a heuristic point of view it is nearly useless.

But more importantly, it demonstrates the exaggeration/error of evolutionists' claims that Evolution "is confirmed through observational, repeatable, testable and predictable data."

You may as well confirm that someone is a psychic because they can predict that a penny will land on either heads or tails. But this type of thing is sold as 'science' to an unsuspecting public.



It's not about "making something up", Evolution is simply the reigning metaphysical paradigm of the academic institution. Regardless of data, it has been agreed upon that life can only be interpreted through the lens of Common Ancestry.

It is similar in the way that cosmology is only to be interpreted through the Copernican principle, i.e. that the Earth does not occupy a preferential region of the universe. There is little to no evidence that such a position is actually true, yet it has still been entrenched as unquestionable metaphysics.




If the mainstream scientific community is driven purely by the data, then why isn't there any consideration at all to asking the question of whether or not naturalistic abiogenesis happened in the first place?

As with Common Descent, to question abiogenesis itself is forbidden. 'Scientists' are only permitted to ask HOW, but never IF abiogenesis occurred. To question IF abiogenesis occurred is to question the underlying Evolutionary Creation story of nature descending from different forms of nature. Thus, the question is a blasphemy and completely off limits.

Strange behavior for people who claim to be unhindered by personal ideology.

1. Common decent is not based on assumption. There are mountains of evidence to support this claim. Allow me to cite a couple of examples and then link you to a page for you to read the rest.

A. Human chromosome #2. "Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes".
The evidence for this includes:

• "The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
• The presence of a vestigialcentromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
  
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle".

Chromosome 2 thus presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

B. 1971 Wall Lizard study. In 1971 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards were transported from one Croatian island in the Adriatic Sea to another island. In 2008, analysis of these Lizards was made. First the DNA sequences of the population of these wall lizards matched that of the original 5 pairs of Wall Lizards. Thus confirming they were descendants. What was discovered of these wall lizards is that they had different head morphology (Taller, longer, wider heads) and an increased bite force compared to the original 5 pairs. The change in head size correlated to it's diet change from insects to plants.
Another difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Mrčaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards. Cecal valves are seen in less than 1% of all known species of scaled reptiles. It is a brand new feature not present in ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards.
Now I know the favorite argument from people opposing evolution is typically "Oh that is just adaptation! That is just 'mirco evolution'" (This may or not be the case with you, I don't know). But it would be like saying I can drive my car down the street but it's impossible to drive it across the country.

Here is the link for evidence that common decent is not an assumption, but a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (All necessary citations located at the bottom of the link).

2. I will just include both arguments for "conspiracy theory" and peer review process in one. Tell me, what would people have to gain by lying about evolution? Give me one example where it would be beneficial to make it all up. Keep in mind, you're the one claiming it's all a fantasy myth. You're going to have to give an explanation as to what you think people would gain by making it up.

3. Again, in my previous post, I linked you the explanation about inconsistent lineage. You either didn't read it and simply dismissed it or you didn't understand it.
From your post above: "You may as well confirm that someone is a psychic because they can predict that a penny will land on either heads or tails. But this type of thing is sold as 'science' to an unsuspecting public." This is an incomplete comparison and is incredibly dishonest. Predictions in science are not made out of thin air. Predictions are made based on the available evidence.
For example. Scientists were looking for the transitional link between fish and amphibian (Tiktaalik). Scientists used the theory of evolution to predict how old they thought the fossil might be and where they might find it. They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the species would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.

That is how predictions in science are made. You make predictions based on the evidence available to you. The predictions have shown to be accurate over and over and over and over and over and over again with transitional fossils. Here is a link to a partial list of the transitions we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


4. Why isn't there any consideration at all to asking if abiogenesis even occurred? Ummm because we'd like to know the answer. We know how the origin of species worked, wouldn't we want to know how it all began? Would you rather them argue from ignorance and say something along the lines of "You know we really need to ask the question, did this even happen? Maybe it didn't therefore we should stop trying to answer what we don't understand" That doesn't sound productive, does it? Would that have been effective with something like earthquakes. "Hmmm we don't know if this is even a natural occurrence so we should just leave it alone"

How is the question of common decent forbidden? You're welcome to question it but the evidence against you is overwhelming. How is questioning abiogenesis forbidden? Is there some unspoken rule that they cannot ask if it happened? We have millions and millions of species which we can explain their origin but you're saying they shouldn't bother asking how it began? You'd rather argue from ignorance and say "You know. We don't really understand this, lets just ask IF it even happened and just let it be" That isn't productive. Would you want your doctor doing this if you contracted a rare disease that little is known about? Would you look at him or her and say "Look doctor, you need to ask yourself IF this is even a real disease or not, don't even bother asking how or why I am sick, just leave it alone, i'll be fine"?

 

[sfs]

This data is loudly sold as a successful prediction of Evolution theory, yet you yourself admit that the pattern could be in disarray and still be a fulfillment of Evolution theory's "predictions", (due to incomplete lineage sorting). Now are you starting to see the problem?

I see the problem quite clearly: you don't understand the predictions of common descent. Either that or you ignore them.

Evolution predicts both concordance and discordance. Therefore, from a heuristic point of view it is nearly useless.

Evolution predicts both concordance and very specific kinds of discordance. Discordance found in close-lying branches of the tree is expected, because ILS is inevitable. Discordance found solely between widely separated terminal branches of the tree is not expected. Now, if you could show an example of that -- a specific ERV insertion at the identical genomic location in, say, one New World monkey and one great ape -- you would have pointed out a genuine inconsistency between the data and the theoretical expectation.

But you can't, because such inconsistencies don't occur. They don't occur even though there are far more available comparisons between distant branches than there are between neighboring branches, i.e. many more opportunities for discordance. Instead, we consistently find patterns that are consistent with common descent.

That's why your argument isn't worth taking seriously: it doesn't engage the actual scientific evidence for common descent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think you even know what a conspiracy is.

There is nothing secret or hidden about the Evolutionists' ideological commitment to the Evolutionary creation mythology. They are quite upfront about the fact that no matter where the data leads, Common Descent will not be questioned.

Try harder with your strawmen arguments. I won't hold my breath for you actually responding to the material in the OP.

Common Descent is pretty much a genetic fact dude.

 

[Jimmy D]

The Dynamics of Incomplete Lineage Sorting across the Ancient Adaptive Radiation of Neoavian Birds 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002224

"...We reconstructed the genealogical fates of thousands of rare genomic changes (insertions of selfish mobile elements called retrotransposons), a third of which were found to be affected by a phenomenon known as incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), namely a persistence of polymorphisms across multiple successive speciation events. Astoundingly, we found that near the K-Pg boundary, speciation events were accompanied by extreme levels of ILS, suggesting a near-simultaneous, star-like diversification process that appears plausible in the context of instantaneous niche availability that must have followed the K-Pg mass extinction....

Here we show that genome-level analyses of 2,118 retrotransposon presence/absence markers converge at a largely consistent Neoaves phylogeny and detect a highly differential temporal prevalence of incomplete lineage sorting (ILS), i.e., the persistence of ancestral genetic variation as polymorphisms during speciation events. We found that ILS-derived incongruences are spread over the genome and involve 35% and 34% of the analyzed loci on the autosomes and the Z chromosome, respectively. Surprisingly, Neoaves diversification comprises three adaptive radiations, an initial near-K-Pg super-radiation with highly discordant phylogenetic signals from near-simultaneous speciation events..."

So your happy to accept scientific studies when they seem to confirm with your beliefs. If they go against those beliefs though they're "assumption/imagination". Great.

 

[029b10]

So if Common Descent is pretty much a genetic fact, when of modern man evolved from the hominids, would it be true that at one point, all mankind originated from a male and female both having the DNA of modern man?