Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[DogmaHunter]

Isn't it though.

Notice that while they dream of all these hypothetical common ancestors, they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.

It's that Ostrich theory taking effect lifepsyop.

Ancestors are not hypothetical.
We all have ancestors.

DNA tells us if we share ancestors and how distant they are.
Common ancestry is not an assumption. It's inferred from data. It's as factual as it gets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't it though.

Notice that while they dream of all these hypothetical common ancestors, they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.

It's that Ostrich theory taking effect lifepsyop.

Yes , yes, We all know where your head is firmly affixed. Neither you nor lifepsyop understand the nature of evidence.

Of course there is evidence that supports a common ancestor. It is too bad that all of the creationists ran away from even the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ancestors are not hypothetical.
We all have ancestors.

Quite right. Our ancestors were humans.

DNA tells us if we share ancestors and how distant they are.
Common ancestry is not an assumption. It's inferred from data. It's as factual as it gets.

DNA confirms human common ancestry because we already know humans descend from humans. No assumptions need to be made here.

Genetic similarity will not tell you that humans and fish share a common ancestor. You will always need to impose your mystical evolutionary assumptions that fish-like animals can and did eventually give rise to humans over many generations.

It's a very simple and clear distinction. One claim relies on assumptions. One does not. You want to confuse the two together. You wish universal common ancestry was strictly inferred from the data, but it's not. It is yet another instance of evolutionists trying to sell their superstition by use of rank equivocation.

 

[The Cadet]

they ignore the ev idence of breed mating with breed producing a new breed they can observe right before their very eyes.

But nobody has ignored that. Nobody denies that crossbreeding can lead to different breeds of the same species. The problem is that you've zoomed in on one very specific, extremely anomalous case, that doesn't even work when extrapolated backwards. There's a reason people keep on asking you "where did those breeds come from". Because even going back through known human history, these breeds were not made simply by crossbreeding existing animals to get mixed traits! They were bred from random mutations in the wolf population. The Husky and Mastiff came from that stock, through selective breeding.

This is the problem we run into - in your model, the tree of life is upside down, leaving us with an ever-shrinking pool of genetic diversity. And somehow, with this, we're supposed to have an ever-growing pool of morphological diversity? After all, once you have your "dogs", where does the genetic diversity come from for new breeds of dogs to appear? Mutation? But unless you invoke some completely baseless barrier to genetic diversity, this will lead to the evolution of new, distinct species.

And of course, as pointed out numerous times, dog breeds are just about the most extreme outlier in nature. There simply is no known extant or extinct species that can compare to Canis lupus familiaris when it comes to morphological diversity, and I have explained why they exhibit such a unique diversity elsewhere on numerous occasions.

All that said, if you still hold your model to be correct, here's a suggestion: go to one of any number of the resources online for asking about biology! There are numerous websites literally titled "ask a biologist" - post your idea there and see what the actual experts have to say about it. Then link it here. Who knows, you may have found some incredibly important development that will completely reform biology. We're talking dozens of peer-reviewed papers, research grants, and entirely new fields of science! Alternatively, if your track record on cosmology is any indicator, what will happen is that countless people who know almost infinitely more about the subject than you will completely dismantle your hypothesis, and you will refuse to admit any problems with it. Your incessant repetition of the same bogus talking points long after people have pointed out the problems with them seems to indicate this as well.

 

[The Cadet]

If you "say" so.

I see lots of different breeds of the same Kind.

Remember, coloring is an artists conceptual addition having no significance to what any reality might have been.

Like, just to point out what's going on here, what do you know about any of these pictures? When did they live? What strata were the fossils found in? What analyses were performed in the fields of ontogeny, comparative anatomy, etc. to determine where they are in the tree of life? Why is it commonly held that these are all separate species? Do you even know the answers to these questions? They're kind of really freakin' important when it comes to your argument! How would you determine if any of these were of the same kind or different breeds? There's a reason why you go to college for 8+ years to study these things!

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

Thread reopened and cleaned due to flaming and off topic posts so if your post is gone that is the reason. First don't attack each other. If you disagree with someone address their post not them. Second stick to the topic at hand and don't go off topic.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Quite right. Our ancestors were humans.



DNA confirms human common ancestry because we already know humans descend from humans. No assumptions need to be made here.

Sounds like you only let DNA tell you what you want to hear.

Genetic similarity will not tell you that humans and fish share a common ancestor. You will always need to impose your mystical evolutionary assumptions that fish-like animals can and did eventually give rise to humans over many generations.

It's a very simple and clear distinction. One claim relies on assumptions. One does not. You want to confuse the two together. You wish universal common ancestry was strictly inferred from the data, but it's not. It is yet another instance of evolutionists trying to sell their superstition by use of rank equivocation.

The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, and the same break in the same gene is shared with other primate species. This is simply not explainable except as the result of a common shared mutation, which cannot happen except there be a shared common ancestral species.

It is not an assumption, it is a deduction from evidence. The kind of thing that juries are willing to use to condemn criminals to death.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sounds like you only let DNA tell you what you want to hear.

Sort of like hearing only what one wants to believe and ignoring those ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host. ERV's that have been shown by HGT to insert foreign genes into different species?

The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, and the same break in the same gene is shared with other primate species. This is simply not explainable except as the result of a common shared mutation, which cannot happen except there be a shared common ancestral species.

see Above.

It is not an assumption, it is a deduction from evidence. The kind of thing that juries are willing to use to condemn criminals to death.

You mean like the evidence presented to a jury used to get evolution taught in schools?

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

What evidence? What we see before our eyes, breed mating with breed and producing a new breed in one birthing? Husky remaining Husky and Mastiff remaining Mastiff with no transnationals between them and the Chinook? Why yes, the fossil record does indeed tell us that. Those missing links are not missing, they never existed. Simply some people mistake breeds of animals they have never seen in life as different species in the past. A simple oversight of reality, but a mistake nonetheless.

Understandable, given what they have to work with, but a mistake nonetheless.

All of these breeds of the same species would be listed by evolutionists as seperate species if they had never seen one in real life. Perhaps with that incorrect belief - a transitional or two as well.

 

[lifepsyop]

Sounds like you only let DNA tell you what you want to hear.

No, I just reject unnecessary assumptions of the Darwinian mystics. DNA doesn't "tell" you that it arranged itself via blind natural laws into instructions for new types of animals, thus your extraordinary claim that genetic similarity across distinct animal groups must indicate relatedness is based on major assumptions not found in evidence. You impose your evolutionary creation religion onto the evidence.

The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, and the same break in the same gene is shared with other primate species. This is simply not explainable except as the result of a common shared mutation, which cannot happen except there be a shared common ancestral species.

Assertions are not arguments.

It is not an assumption, it is a deduction from evidence. The kind of thing that juries are willing to use to condemn criminals to death.

Rank equivocation. Vague allusions. What do you have against presenting your arguments clearly for everyone to see?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sort of like hearing only what one wants to believe and ignoring those ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host. ERV's that have been shown by HGT to insert foreign genes into different species?

Horizontal gene transfer is rare among us vertabrate animals. Its more common in plants and single celled bacteria.

But I'm glad you brought up the subject of ERV's, they certainly are evidence of shared ancestry among all us terrestrial four-limbed animals.

What evidence? What we see before our eyes, breed mating with breed and producing a new breed in one birthing?

Two breeds mating bring forth a mongrel, which is a perfectly fine dog in its own right, but not a new breed . . . yet.
The chinook breed was not the result of a single mating.

http://www.chinook.org/history.html

Husky remaining Husky and Mastiff remaining Mastiff with no transnationals between them and the Chinook? Why yes, the fossil record does indeed tell us that. Those missing links are not missing, they never existed.

Fossils? From historical records of dogs bred in modern times? This is a bizarre claim you are making. Here's a quote from the above link:

Chinook was bred to German Shepherd Dogs and Belgian Sheepdogs (at this time, all varieties were considered the same breed) from working backgrounds, Canadian Eskimo dogs, and perhaps other breeds. These offspring were bred back to Chinook, and to each other to create the Chinook breed. He was considered a sport of nature because he sired pups that resembled himself in size, color, drive and intelligence.

See? Multiple generations were involved in establishing the breed. The original dog that inspired the desire to create the breed would never have bred true except for the intense selection and careful breeding by men skilled in this technique.

All of these breeds of the same species would be listed by evolutionists as seperate species if they had never seen one in real life. Perhaps with that incorrect belief - a transitional or two as well.

You admit that much change is possible to see in creatures of common descent and yet you deny evolution is possible. A very strange mind set.

And just seeing one in real life would still leave you thinking they were different species. Only the fact that they can all breed together makes them a single species, and its obvious the biggest of them cannot breed with the smallest of them . . . they just don't fit! So all we have to do is eliminate the middle breeds and presto, we would have two species right before our eyes!

That mechanism, over millions and millions of years, is responsible for the development of the great panoply of life.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I just reject unnecessary assumptions of the Darwinian mystics. DNA doesn't "tell" you that it arranged itself via blind natural laws into instructions for new types of animals, thus your extraordinary claim that genetic similarity across distinct animal groups must indicate relatedness is based on major assumptions not found in evidence. You impose your evolutionary creation religion onto the evidence.

And you wrote this denial of evolution even while you possess ear wiggling muscles you don't use. You don't use them for a very good reason . . . we have a sophisticated phase analysis system that allows us to tell, instantly, which direction a sound is coming from. But it works best if our ears hold still.

Neverthless, our ears have ear wiggling muscles that nobody ever uses. Some of us can wiggle our ears but it doesn't help our hearing. These muscles are only explainable as vestiges from a previous species way back that could move its ears to good effect.

 

[lifepsyop]

And you wrote this denial of evolution even while you possess ear wiggling muscles you don't use. You don't use them for a very good reason . . . we have a sophisticated phase analysis system that allows us to tell, instantly, which direction a sound is coming from. But it works best if our ears hold still.

Neverthless, our ears have ear wiggling muscles that nobody ever uses. Some of us can wiggle our ears but it doesn't help our hearing. These muscles are only explainable as vestiges from a previous species way back that could move its ears to good effect.

Nice to see some evolutionists are still making bald assertions about "vestigial" traits. You don't see that as much these days...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice to see some evolutionists are still making bald assertions about "vestigial" traits. You don't see that as much these days...

Most creationists finally know what vestigial traits are and that they definitely exist. They tend to ignore them. It is nice to see that a few creationists still don't know what "vestigial" means.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Most creationists finally know what vestigial traits are and that they definitely exist. They tend to ignore them. It is nice to see that a few creationists still don't know what "vestigial" means.

No its not nice. Its sad.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Nice to see some evolutionists are still making bald assertions about "vestigial" traits. You don't see that as much these days...

Perhaps you could elaborate on your scepticism with this example. Why specifically do you reject this example of vestigial ear muscles as evidence of descent from a nonhuman ancestor?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No its not nice. Its sad.

I know, I was being a bit facetious and took the same stance that lifepsyop did. Sadly he does not know why or how vestigial organs are vestigial. He does not know that many times vestigial organs develop a new use and though they are still vestigial in their original purpose that does not mean that they are not needed today. That is illustrated with every breath that we take. The organ that our lungs arose from was the swim bladder in fish. In fact there are still some lungfish in existence today. Their gills are of little use, they breath mostly through their lungs which use to be their swim bladder many many ancestors ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I know, I was being a bit facetious and took the same stance that lifepsyop did. Sadly he does not know why or how vestigial organs are vestigial. He does not know that many times vestigial organs develop a new use and though they are still vestigial in their original purpose that does not mean that they are not needed today. That is illustrated with every breath that we take. The organ that our lungs arose from was the swim bladder in fish. In fact there are still some lungfish in existence today. Their gills are of little use, they breath mostly through their lungs which use to be their swim bladder many many ancestors ago.

We all know that religious motivation can lead men to not only be martyrs, but to be extremely wrong. Its easy to see in those religions other than mine. Never possible to happen to me . . .

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all know that religious motivation can lead men to not only be martyrs, but to be extremely wrong. Its easy to see in those religions other than mine. Never possible to happen to me . . .

On a related noted, your spelling of the word "scepticism" makes me cringe a bit since to my American mind it looks like it the root word should be pronounced "septic". But it got me thinking along with the fact that we have ancestors that were not human. For almost all of us in he New World we can trace back to where our ancestors were not American, or Canadian. Our ancestors made a change. For them it was a choice. Species will often have a group that undergoes a change but for them it was not a choice, it just happened because of various reasons. That fact that a speciation event happened does not mean that the old species had to die out and the fact that some of my ancestors came from Finland does not mean that there are no more Finns. In fact if I claimed to be a Finn most of them would laugh at me.

It seems that creationists will reject even a simple idea like speciation, or purposefully misunderstand it.

 

[The Cadet]

Sort of like hearing only what one wants to believe and ignoring those ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host. ERV's that have been shown by HGT to insert foreign genes into different species?

How do we detect ERVs and horizontal gene transfer? What is your model of horizontal gene transfer? You seem to reject it as evidence for common descent - so how do they work?

Is this kind of morphological diversity typical within a species? Can you present other species with similar diversity?