ERVs and how Evolutionists bluff with the data

[Loudmouth]

I already did. Let's just say that similarity patterns between humans and other primates were totally chaotic.

They aren't. Your example has already failed.

"Many animal toolkit proteins, despite over 1 billion years of independent evolution in different lineages, often exhibit functionally equivalent activities in vivo when substituted for one another. These observations indicate that the biochemical properties of these proteins and their interactions with receptors, cofactors, etc. have diverged little over vast expanses of time...
...The deployment of homologous transcription factors in similar roles reflects that some parts of genetic regulatory networks (GRNs) present in a common ancestor were conserved in descendant lineages. The existence of common regulatory inputs acting in a similar manner in the development of structures that are not directly related by common ancestry (that is, not homologous) has been referred to as “deep homology”...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867408008179

That is the usual sleight of hand. What happens when we compare the SEQUENCES of those proteins?

As I stated before, the existence of "mammal feathers", would be interpreted as independent activation of the same 'protein toolkit' that existed in the common amniote ancestor of birds and mammals.

Again, non-existent evidence and non-existent scientists. Please deal with reality.

According to evolutionists, the shrew on the left is more "closely related" to an elephant than it is to the shrew on the right. Here you have two extremely similar animals,

You need more than superficial similarities. Skeletal comparisons are needed. Where are they?

 

[ecco]

Yet evolutionists pretend they are always making precise predictions, and that their theory would be shot to pieces by a single piece out of place. It's a sham.

Evolution is a fog that settles around the shifting landscape of data.

You have repeatedly argued against the scientific evidence for evolution.

Well, let's look at the flip side of things for a change. How do you believe humans and elephant shrews came to be? Please state your viewpoint and the evidence that supports that viewpoint.

 

[lifepsyop]

You need more than superficial similarities. Skeletal comparisons are needed. Where are they?

What are you trying to act all skeptical about? Why don't you look it up if you're so interested?

They were both placental "shrews" which were classified as closely related until recent molecular studies. That's enough to tell you that the similarities are far more than "superficial". The burden is on you to show something different.

But here, I did the work for you.

Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda)

Macroscelides proboscideus, Short-eared Elephant Shrew

According to evolutionists, the elephant shrew in the previous image is more closely related to an elephant than it is to the short-tailed shrew in the top image.

Elephant

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/080301_elephantshrew

Evolution is an amorphous fog settling around the data.

 

[ecco]

Two hundred years ago we drove horse powered buggies.
Two hundred years later we drive cars.
Most people marvel at the progress man has made.

Two hundred years ago we dipped quills into an ink bowl, addressed an envelope and the recipient got our letter in days or months.
Two hundred years later we use email.
Most people marvel at the progress man has made.

Two hundred years ago scientists classified anaimals by how they looked.
Two hundred years later they find a better way to classify anaimals.
Many people denigrate the progress man has made.

Why the difference? IMO people will accept science up to the point where it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Then they will either reject those parts of science that conflict with their beliefs or they bend their religious beliefs. They shift the line of their beliefs by picking and choosing what parts of scripture to believe. Many biologists consider themselves to be Christians. They also believe that Genesis is allegory.

Those who believe Genesis is fact, cannot accept evolution, so they try to find ways to “disprove” it to themselves and others. People who accept Genesis as fact will believe the "disprovers". Those who accept Genesis as allegory, or those who have no belief in scripture at all, will believe in science. The same kinds of science that brought us cars and email.

 

[Loudmouth]

What are you trying to act all skeptical about? Why don't you look it up if you're so interested?

Why don't you show us the skeletal features that are such a problem.

 

[lifepsyop]

Why don't you show us the skeletal features that are such a problem.

It isn't a problem for Evolution, and that's the point. The "theory" is so plastic that it is able to reconcile such a striking conflict whereby two extremely morphologically/anatomically similar animals are claimed to be more distantly related to each other than one of them is to a relatively highly differentiated body-plan of the elephant.

This, of course, is accomplished by waving the magic wand of "convergent evolution", which swoops in to the rescue whenever things don't seem to fit.

This is what makes it so comical when people like you claim that Evolution theory makes precise predictions, or "passes every test". It's a joke.

 

[Loudmouth]

It isn't a problem for Evolution, and that's the point. The "theory" is able to reconcile such a striking conflict whereby two extremely morphologically/anatomically similar animals are claimed to be more distantly related to each other than one of them is to a relatively highly differentiated body-plan of the elephant.

What conflicts are you talking about? Please show us the specific skeletal conflicts you are talking about.

Or is it just size that you are freaked out about?

This, of course, is accomplished by waving the magic wand of "convergent evolution", which swoops in to the rescue whenever things don't seem to fit.

You haven't shown that there are any conflicts. Simply pointing at size is not a conflict.

 

[lifepsyop]

What conflicts are you talking about? Please show us the specific skeletal conflicts you are talking about.

Or is it just size that you are freaked out about?

You haven't shown that there are any conflicts. Simply pointing at size is not a conflict.

Which is why I'm obviously not "simply pointing out size".

Loudmouth, take your time and actually study your opponent's presentations rather than waving your hands and throwing out random unfounded objections hoping for something that sticks. I've already explained to you that it was the scientists themselves who originally classified both animals within the same shrew grouping based on their similarities. You really need to put a little more thought into your responses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is why I'm obviously not "simply pointing out size".

Loudmouth, take your time and actually study your opponent's presentations rather than waving your hands and throwing out random unfounded objections hoping for something that sticks. I've already explained to you that it was the scientists themselves who originally classified both animals within the same shrew grouping based on their similarities. You really need to put a little more thought into your responses.

Then tell us what the skeletal structures are that cause such a problem.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then tell us what the skeletal structures are that cause such a problem.

The funny thing is how you pretend to be judging the skeletal structures against actual theoretical constraints when you're really just bluffing.

Tell you what, since you're so concerned with the skeletal features, why don't you explain to us the precise extent to which common shrew/elephant shrew skeletal similarities would be impossible for "convergent evolution" to have produced. If you can do that, then you have an actual theory. If not.. well, sorry, then evolutionists are simply telling stories, explaining whatever level of morphological similarities as "convergent" when appearances don't fit as expected.

I already know you have no answer to this, (as Evolution is not a real theory), but we can wait and see how you attempt to dodge or change the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

The funny thing is how you pretend to be judging the skeletal structures against actual theoretical constraints when you're really just bluffing.

Tell you what, since you're so concerned with the skeletal features, why don't you explain to us the precise extent to which common shrew/elephant shrew skeletal similarities would be impossible for "convergent evolution" to have produced. If you can do that, then you have an actual theory. If not.. well, sorry, then evolutionists are simply telling stories, explaining whatever level of morphological similarities as "convergent" when appearances don't fit as expected.

I already know you have no answer to this, (as Evolution is not a real theory), but we can wait and see how you attempt to dodge or change the subject.

You are the one who claimed that there is a problem with these species. Until you actually demonstrate that there is, there is nothing to address.

 

[lifepsyop]

You are the one who claimed that there is a problem with these species. Until you actually demonstrate that there is, there is nothing to address.

As predicted. No answer. No theory. You can't even describe its basic framework because there is none. Evolution is storytelling.

 

[Loudmouth]

As predicted. No answer. Tho theory. You can't even describe its basic framework because there is none. Evolution is storytelling.

As predicted, you can't provide any examples of conflicts.

I already gave you examples of what I would accept as falsifications. If we found that 10% of the human genome was more like sloths than like chimps, I would gladly agree that this was a serious falsification of the theory. Can you show us anything like this in the genetic data? Can you show us two very closely related vertebrates and one very distantly related vertebrate where 10% of the genome is more like the very distant relative?

 

[lifepsyop]

As predicted, you can't provide any examples of conflicts.

I already gave you examples of what I would accept as falsifications. If we found that 10% of the human genome was more like sloths than like chimps, I would gladly agree that this was a serious falsification of the theory. Can you show us anything like this in the genetic data? Can you show us two very closely related vertebrates and one very distantly related vertebrate where 10% of the genome is more like the very distant relative?

Your challenge is completely illogical as the closeness or distance of relatedness is inferred from the genome to begin with. Case in point: the elephant shrew was believed to be "closely related" to other shrews until genomic data indicated otherwise. This did not falsify the theory, it merely caused evolutionists to change their story. It's sad that you don't get this. Denial, I suppose.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your challenge is completely illogical as the closeness or distance of relatedness is inferred from the genome to begin with.

The relatedness of humans, chimps, and sloths was first established by morphology.

Case in point: the elephant shrew was believed to be "closely related" to other shrews until genomic data indicated otherwise.

Based on what? Superficial similarities? If so, it fails. You can't derive evolutionary distances based on superficial similarities. You need diagnostic features that go beyond superficialities.

This did not falsify the theory, it merely caused evolutionists to change their story. It's sad that you don't get this. Denial, I suppose.

We have had the same story from the beginning. Relatedness can not be determined by crude superficial similarities.

 

[lifepsyop]

Based on what? Superficial similarities? If so, it fails. You can't derive evolutionary distances based on superficial similarities. You need diagnostic features that go beyond superficialities.

We have had the same story from the beginning. Relatedness can not be determined by crude superficial similarities.

Oops, you're back to the same problem you just tried to dodge. How exactly do you identify a "superficial similarity" ?

To distinguish between what is "superficial" or not, with regards to morphology/anatomy, you must be able to define the limits to "convergent evolution". Otherwise you can simply order phylogeny by genetics and chalk up any strange morphological patterns as "convergence".

I eagerly await your second attempt to escape having to actually explain how your theory works.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oops, you're back to the same problem you just tried to dodge. How exactly do you identify a "superficial similarity" ?

Small bodies, long snouts. Features that don't look at the underlying skeletal structure, or features that are independent of the niche. You know, exactly what you are doing with your example. You can't cite a single skeletal diagnostic feature.

 

[lifepsyop]

Small bodies, long snouts. Features that don't look at the underlying skeletal structure,

Are you really suggesting that similar skeletal structures can not "convergently evolve" ? Not a good stance to take as an evolutionist as such occurrences are believed to be routine (take dentition for example). More proof that you are groping for a foothold and not actually describing a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you really suggesting that similar skeletal structures can not "convergently evolve" ?

You haven't shown similar skeletal structures. You have only pointed to superficial similarities which are not similar skeletal structures.

 

[lifepsyop]

You haven't shown similar skeletal structures. You have only pointed to superficial similarities which are not similar skeletal structures.

Another dodge. As usual, you cannot describe even basic fundamentals of Evolution theory. Because there is no theory.

I'll ask you again since I need to be clear on your position.

Are you suggesting that similar skeletal structures can not "convergently evolve" ?

Do you even know what your position is?