ERVs and how Evolutionists bluff with the data

[Goonie]

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

Apart from that being taught in every credible university on planet earth. The mountains of research carried out by biologists worldwide etc.

"Every time a child says, 'I don't believe in fairies,' there is a fairy somewhere that falls down dead." Peter replies.

Unlike in fiction something does not cease to exist if you repeatedly deny it.

 

[lifepsyop]

Lets take another look at the Pegasoferae hypothesis


Pegasoferae is a proposed clade of mammals based on genomic research in molecular systematics by Nishihara, Hasegawa and Okada (2006).[1]

To the surprise of the authors, their data led them to propose a clade that includes bats (order Chiroptera), carnivores such as cats and dogs (order Carnivora), horses and other odd-toed ungulates (order Perissodactyla) and pangolins (order Pholidota) as springing from a single evolutionary origin within the mammals. The name Pegasoferae was coined from the name of the mythological flying horse Pegasus to refer to bats and horses, and the term Ferae, encompassing carnivorans and pangolins. According to this, the odd-toed ungulates' closest living relatives are the carnivorans. Earlier theories of mammalian evolution would, for example, have aligned bats with the insectivores (order Eulipotyphla) and horses with the even-toed ungulates (order Artiodactyla).

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

(notice the Horse is grouped more closely to the Bat, than it is the Cow)

Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16785431

Evolutionists considerthe possibility that the Odd-toed Ungulates below, are more closely related to the Bat, than they are to the Even-toed Ungulates.

(Evolutionists believe this animal could be more closely related to a horse than a horse is to a cow)

This is a superb demonstration of just how jello-like the Theory of Evolution really is. Evolutionists will tell you that all the similarities between Odd and Even-toed Ungulates are powerful evidence for their close relationship with each other as a unified "hooved mammal" group.

UNTIL, molecular data leads them to hypothesize that one of these hoofed mammal groups are more closely related to Bats.

And then, suddenly all of those unifying similarities can be downgraded to a level "superficiality".

This is how Evolution theory can simply rearrange itself to accommodate wildly conflicting data. This is how evolutionists are completely bluffing when they tell you that their "theory" makes precise predictions or 'passes every test'.

Evolutionists count on you not understanding how jello-like the theory actually is.


Interestingly, this more recent study actually found the opposite, that Even-toed Ungulates (cows), are more closely related to Bats than they are to Odd-toed Ungulates (horses).

A phylogenetic blueprint for a modern whale 2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312004186

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Another dodge. What are the similar skeletal structures in elephant shrews that you are claiming cause a conflict?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets take another look at the Pegasoferae hypothesis


Pegasoferae is a proposed clade of mammals based on genomic research in molecular systematics by Nishihara, Hasegawa and Okada (2006).[1]

To the surprise of the authors, their data led them to propose a clade that includes bats (order Chiroptera), carnivores such as cats and dogs (order Carnivora), horses and other odd-toed ungulates (order Perissodactyla) and pangolins (order Pholidota) as springing from a single evolutionary origin within the mammals. The name Pegasoferae was coined from the name of the mythological flying horse Pegasus to refer to bats and horses, and the term Ferae, encompassing carnivorans and pangolins. According to this, the odd-toed ungulates' closest living relatives are the carnivorans. Earlier theories of mammalian evolution would, for example, have aligned bats with the insectivores (order Eulipotyphla) and horses with the even-toed ungulates (order Artiodactyla).

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

From the paper:

"Remarkably, four loci (INT165, INT265, INT382, and INT391) indicate the monophyly of Carnivora, Perissodactyla, and Chiroptera, excluding Cetartiodactyla and Eulipotyphla (Fig. 3 and Table 2). It should be noted that these insertions are inconsistent with the Fereuungulata clade (36). The bootstrap values to support Fereuungulata (32, 37) are not high; thus, the validity remains controversial (7). The present analysis provides conclusive evidence that Chiroptera is nested deeply within Laurasiatheria, and we named this clade Pegasoferae (see below)."

Just four markers, and poor bootstrap values. Hardly conclusive. Not only that, but when additional and better markers were used with better bootstrap values this phylogeny was shown to be wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

Just four markers, and poor bootstrap values. Hardly conclusive. Not only that, but when additional and better markers were used with better bootstrap values this phylogeny was shown to be wrong.

Loudmouth, true to form, demonstrates once again that he cannot follow a simple argument.

The latest consensus model is irrelevant. The point (which you are constantly trying to dance around), is that the Evolutionary community has clearly accepted the possibility that Horses are more closely related to Bats, than they are to Horses.

Whether or not that is what they currently believe, we can clearly see that such an absurd relationship pattern would not falsify Common Descent. Real evolutionary scientists have proposed such patterns as real hypotheses.

Again, for the cognitively challenged: What the theory currently holds is irrelevant to the fact that the theory can potentially accommodate both extremes. The theory can not even predict if a Horse should be more closely related to a Cow than a Bat. Think about that.

So are Horse/Cow similarities "superficial" or not? Evolutionists can't tell you. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, depending on how Bats are related to them.

There is no Evolution theory. Just an amorphous narrative.

By the way, as of 2013, researchers are still having trouble resolving the relationship between both Ungulate groups and bats, and phylogenetic models continue to place Bats in between them.

"Relationships among the major clades of Mammalia generally agreed with results from explicitly model-based methods, with high bootstrap support for the placement of Cetacea within Artiodactyla and Sirenia within Afrotheria. The phylogenetic position of Artiodactyla relative to several other laurasiatherian orders (bats, carnivorans + pangolins, perissodactyls) was not robustly resolved , and parallels the difficulties encountered in recent attempts at delineating relationships among these taxa."

https://www.montclair.edu/profilepa...phylogenetic_blueprint_for_a_modern_whale.pdf

 

[Herman Hedning]

Lets take another look at the Pegasoferae hypothesis


Pegasoferae is a proposed clade of mammals based on genomic research in molecular systematics by Nishihara, Hasegawa and Okada (2006).[1]

To the surprise of the authors, their data led them to propose a clade that includes bats (order Chiroptera), carnivores such as cats and dogs (order Carnivora), horses and other odd-toed ungulates (order Perissodactyla) and pangolins (order Pholidota) as springing from a single evolutionary origin within the mammals. The name Pegasoferae was coined from the name of the mythological flying horse Pegasus to refer to bats and horses, and the term Ferae, encompassing carnivorans and pangolins. According to this, the odd-toed ungulates' closest living relatives are the carnivorans. Earlier theories of mammalian evolution would, for example, have aligned bats with the insectivores (order Eulipotyphla) and horses with the even-toed ungulates (order Artiodactyla).

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

For completeness, let's add the next paragraph from Wikipedia that you omitted:

Some subsequent molecular studies published shortly afterwards have failed to support it. In particular, two recent studies, each combining genome-wide analyses of multiple taxa with testing of competing alternative phylogenetic hypotheses, concluded that Pegasoferae is not a natural grouping.

Ant that text is accompanied by several references to academic papers which can be found following the Wikipedia link above.

 

[lifepsyop]

For completeness, let's add the next paragraph from Wikipedia that you omitted:

Ant that text is accompanied by several references to academic papers which can be found following the Wikipedia link above.

My goodness, how hard is it to follow an argument? I don't care if Pegasoferae is currently a consensus view or not. Whether or not Pegasoferae is correct is irrelevant to the fact that Evolutionists demonstrate that such animal relationships could be potentially accommodated into the theory if necessary.

What are you not getting about that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, true to form, demonstrates once again that he cannot follow a simple argument.

The latest consensus model is irrelevant.

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away. A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

 

[lifepsyop]

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away.

Indeed. As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved. Evolution cannot even predict which pairing should be correct, because it can accommodate all such incredibly conflicting patterns.

How embarrassing. I wonder why they don't show the public this sort of thing?

A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

We know for a fact that it would not, and that's what matters. Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

 

[lifepsyop]

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away.

Indeed. As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved. Evolution cannot even predict which pairing should be correct, because it can accommodate all such incredibly conflicting patterns.

How embarrassing. I wonder why they don't show the public this sort of thing?

A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

We know for a fact that it would not, and that's what matters. Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

 

[lifepsyop]

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away.

Indeed. As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved. Evolution cannot even predict which pairing should be correct, because it can accommodate all such incredibly conflicting patterns.

A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

We know for a fact that it would not, and that's what matters. Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

 

[lifepsyop]

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away.

Indeed. As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved. Evolution cannot even predict which pairing should be correct, because it can accommodate all such incredibly conflicting patterns.

A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

We know for a fact that it would not, and that's what matters. Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

 

[lifepsyop]

The latest evidence is relevant. The earlier study used four markers, and the analysis had poor bootstrap values. That puts the conclusions in question right away.

Indeed. As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved. Evolution cannot even predict which pairing should be correct, because it can accommodate all such incredibly conflicting patterns.

A larger study with more markers and better statistical confidence produced the expected phylogeny.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

We know for a fact that it would not, and that's what matters. Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

 

[crjmurray]

Loudmouth, true to form, demonstrates once again that he cannot follow a simple argument.

The latest consensus model is irrelevant. The point (which you are constantly trying to dance around), is that the Evolutionary community has clearly accepted the possibility that Horses are more closely related to Bats, than they are to Horses.

Whether or not that is what they currently believe, we can clearly see that such an absurd relationship pattern would not falsify Common Descent. Real evolutionary scientists have proposed such patterns as real hypotheses.

Again, for the cognitively challenged: What the theory currently holds is irrelevant to the fact that the theory can potentially accommodate both extremes. The theory can not even predict if a Horse should be more closely related to a Cow than a Bat. Think about that.

So are Horse/Cow similarities "superficial" or not? Evolutionists can't tell you. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, depending on how Bats are related to them.

There is no Evolution theory. Just an amorphous narrative.

By the way, as of 2013, researchers are still having trouble resolving the relationship between both Ungulate groups and bats, and phylogenetic models continue to place Bats in between them.

"Relationships among the major clades of Mammalia generally agreed with results from explicitly model-based methods, with high bootstrap support for the placement of Cetacea within Artiodactyla and Sirenia within Afrotheria. The phylogenetic position of Artiodactyla relative to several other laurasiatherian orders (bats, carnivorans + pangolins, perissodactyls) was not robustly resolved , and parallels the difficulties encountered in recent attempts at delineating relationships among these taxa."

https://www.montclair.edu/profilepa...phylogenetic_blueprint_for_a_modern_whale.pdf

It's weird that you're still on this after I pointed out that subsequent research found this to be inaccurate. Why would you do that?

 

[lifepsyop]

It's weird that you're still on this after I pointed out that subsequent research found this to be inaccurate. Why would you do that?

I'm trying to understand the theory.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

 

[crjmurray]

I'm trying to understand the theory.

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. My layman's opinion? No, that would not falsify common descent. It would falsify a current model, maybe, but not the whole shebang. You would need a bigger violation than just incongruence amongst mammals.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don't know. I'm not a biologist. My layman's opinion? No, that would not falsify common descent. It would falsify a current model, maybe, but not the whole shebang. You would need a bigger violation than just incongruence amongst mammals.

If the average person understood that Evolution theory cannot predict whether a horse should be more closely related to a bat or a cow, then public confidence in the theory would plummet severely.

I'm sure most readers here had no idea the theory is so wishy-washy because of the way in which it is popularly marketed without ever including these inconvenient facts.

 

[crjmurray]

If the average person understood that Evolution theory cannot predict whether a horse should be more closely related to a bat or a cow, then public confidence in the theory would plummet severely.

I'm sure most readers here had no idea the theory is so wishy-washy because of the way in which it is popularly marketed without ever including these inconvenient facts.

Ok then

 

[Loudmouth]

If the average person understood that Evolution theory cannot predict whether a horse should be more closely related to a bat or a cow, then public confidence in the theory would plummet severely.

I'm sure most readers here had no idea the theory is so wishy-washy because of the way in which it is popularly marketed without ever including these inconvenient facts.

Still misrepresenting the science, I see.

 

[USincognito]

Would Horses being more closely related to Bats than to Cows falsify Common Descent or not?

Not necessarily in the same way that seals being more closely related to bears than manatees or cattle being more closely related to whales than to horses doesn't falsify common descent.

You're still stuck on superficial, contemporary appearance. Genetics informs us better than "common sense".

Evolution is an amorphous fog, settling around a shifting landscape of data.

I'm sure, to those stuck on superficial, contemporary appearance, it can appear to be.

As of 2013, the relationship between Horses, Cows, and Bats are still unresolved.

As has been pointed out and you keep ignoring it, that was one paper with a limited and poor data set shown untenable in later studies. I'd also point out this 2011 paper.
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/03/sysbio.syr089.abstract

Furthermore, we tested alternative topologies within Laurasiatheria, and among alternatives for the phylogenetic position of Perissodactyla, a sister group relationship with Cetartiodactyla receives the highest support. Thus, Pegasoferae (Perissodactyla + Carnivora + Pholidota + Chiroptera) does not appear to be a natural group.​

 

[lifepsyop]

Not necessarily in the same way that seals being more closely related to bears than manatees or cattle being more closely related to whales than to horses doesn't falsify common descent.

You're still stuck on superficial, contemporary appearance. Genetics informs us better than "common sense".

Right the similarities of horses and cows relative to bats are "superficial". Whatever you say. What has been demonstrated is that "superficial" can mean pretty much whatever the evolutionists needs it to mean in order to rescue the theory following genetic comparisons.

The shared traits of hooved mammals can either be superficial or non-superficial, depending on what story needs to be told.

As has been pointed out and you keep ignoring it, that was one paper with a limited and poor data set shown untenable in later studies. I'd also point out this 2011 paper.
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/03/sysbio.syr089.abstract

Furthermore, we tested alternative topologies within Laurasiatheria, and among alternatives for the phylogenetic position of Perissodactyla, a sister group relationship with Cetartiodactyla receives the highest support. Thus, Pegasoferae (Perissodactyla + Carnivora + Pholidota + Chiroptera) does not appear to be a natural group.​

Why are you ignoring the 2013 paper I referenced that grouped Artiodactyla closer to Chiroptera than Perissodactyla?

The fact is that evolutionists cannot resolve this relationship because the data is so conflicting. The theory is so weak that it cannot predict whether a horse should be more closely related to a bat or a cow, or a cow should be more closely related to a bat than a horse, or a horse more closely related to a cow than a bat. Neither result would pose any problem to Evolution theory because it accommodates all of them.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That is ad-hoc. They are delineated into "New World Monkeys" in the first place in reaction to the data. If the data instead pointed to greater genomic confusion with those species currently regarded as "Old World Monkeys", then the distinction would be diminished accordingly.

This evades the point that a morphologically derived phylogeny is supported by the completely independent pattern of ERV insertions. This also neatly refutes your already dubious "same molecules same morphology" mantra.

And you have yet to explain how Evolution predicts that precise ERV pattern. You just keep asserting it. Just like you avoided my challenge to explain how Evolution predicts the precise Primate ERV pattern in general.

This is the same mistake you always make with this argument. There is no reason that evolutionary theory needs to predict a specific pattern of relationships for a pattern (particularly one that is supported by multiple consilient lines of evidence) to suggest the evolutionary process has taken place. Without common descent there is no reason to expect a pattern of ERVs that aligns with independent lines of evidence like morphology and in fact such a coincidence would be absurdly improbable given the nature of ERV insertions.

I have repeatedly framed this point in terms of plate tectonics and you have never substantively addressed it. Please rectify this. I'll reiterate it here for your convenience.

Various consilient lines of evidence show that plate tectonics is a real process and that the continents have shifted positions over time. These lines of evidence show that Antarctica and Australia were once connected. But there is nothing in the theory that requires that relationship. Australia could have been connected to North America for instance.

The point is that the evidence shows that the continents have shifted over time and that plate tectonics is a real process.

You have repeatedly disagreed with this but you have never supported your dissent. In light of the fact that plate tectonics could easily accommodate a past connection between Australia and North America, please explicitly state why the evidence showing that Australia and Antarctica were connected does not support the idea that the continents have moved over time.

 

[In situ]

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.

For the sake of the argument, I will grant everything you posted after this is correct. Now, I got a questions:

How do you explain that homeoboxes, which is very strong evidence for common ancestor, essentially generates the same pattern as ERV's?

 

[In situ]

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

This made me laugh so much I might actually consider to read all the rest of your nonsense.