Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[AV1611VET]

On the contrary, it's got hundreds of missing links in it.

More like it's the Reader's Digest condensed version.

Else it would probably need all of Watson's memory to daisy-chain cyanobacteria to man.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look again. The picture you posted was of Hawaiian honeycreepers, not Galapagos finches.

Is that what you are resorting to? Misleading people? Intentional or not has yet to be determined.

Hawaiian honey creepers.

Darwin's Finches. And here are the real finches, not just drawings. Real finches

Picture posted. Actually an article with a picture.

 

[sfs]

Is that what you are resorting to? Misleading people? Intentional or not has yet to be determined.

Hawaiian honey creepers.

Darwin's Finches. And here are the real finches, not just drawings. Real finches

Picture posted. Actually an article with a picture.

Go back and look at post #367, which is the post I replied to. The picture there is this:

That picture is labeled "Darwin's finches", but the birds pictured are Hawaiian honeycreepers. (The name "Maui parrotbill" kind of gives that fact away.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Also, you note that vestigial structures are currently understood to be structures that retain little of their original function, but then your argument is focused on the idea that vestigial structures are useless.

Why would a flipper be useless to a whale? It is perfectly suited to what the whale is and it's environment. Oh, oh, you mean from what you believe was once a land mammal and evolved into a sea animal, even if all life evolved from the oceans? Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince us we were once germs in a sea?

So didn't flippers in reality evolve long before legs? So why even under evolution would I assume flippers were vestigial structures when those structures evolved long before the structures they are supposed to be vestigial to?

And wouldn't going back to a previous evolutionary stage be devolving, not evolving?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Go back and look at post #367, which is the post I replied to. The picture there is this:

That picture is labeled "Darwin's finches", but the birds pictured are Hawaiian honeycreepers. (The name "Maui parrotbill" kind of gives that fact away.)

Go back and reread the post. We were at that time discussing variation within different breeds of the same Kind - of which birds are. We had not yet then even started talking about the Finch per-se. So I am to blame for your taking things out of sequence? Or did you just really not read things?

 

[sfs]

Go back and reread the post. We were at that time discussing variation within different breeds of the same Kind - of which birds are. We had not yet then even started talking about the Finch per-se. So I am to blame for your taking things out of sequence?

I responded to a post that talked about finches, and that included a pictures of finches, presumably illustrating the statements made in the post. My response noted that the statements were not true of the finches pictured. My quotation was accurate, and my point was correct. Going back and rereading the post, I see nothing wrong with my post, nor anything "out of sequence" about it. I didn't even realize that lifepsyop thought he was talking about Darwin's finches and had accidentally posted a picture of honeycreepers (if indeed that's what happened). In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about here, or why you think my factually correct (and polite) post was wrong somehow, or why you think I'm to blame for you accusing me of being deceptive. Nor do I care. He post the wrong picture. Big deal.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I responded to a post that talked about finches, and that included a pictures of finches, presumably illustrating the statements made in the post. My response noted that the statements were not true of the finches pictured. My quotation was accurate, and my point was correct. Going back and rereading the post, I see nothing wrong with my post, nor anything "out of sequence" about it. I didn't even realize that lifepsyop thought he was talking about Darwin's finches and had accidentally posted a picture of honeycreepers (if indeed that's what happened). In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about here, or why you think my factually correct (and polite) post was wrong somehow, or why you think I'm to blame for you accusing me of being deceptive. Nor do I care. He post the wrong picture. Big deal.

Then what you are saying is you had no clue to what was being discussed, but decided to chime in anyways and just accuse people of deception? Accuse me of posting pictures not about finches in a discussion that then wasn't about finches?

And the picture has a finch in it, life just used it for quick reference because in the post he got it from of mine we were discussing breeds in general.

Although I'll give 10 to 1 odds if we put them together they'll eventually interbreed.

Since even the Hawaiian honeysuckle is in reality a Finch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_honeycreeper
"Hawaiian honeycreepers are small, passerine birds endemic to Hawaiʻi. Some authorities still categorize this group as a family Drepanididae,[1] other authorities consider them a subfamily, Drepanidinae, of Fringillidae, the finch family."

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Those were not hypotheticals. That is textbook evolutionary reasoning.

Shared Trait Presence - evolution did it
Unique Trait Presence - evolution did it
Trait Absence - evolution did it
Expected similarities - evolution did it
Unexpected similarities - evolution did it
Expected differences - evolution did it
Unexpected differences - evolution did it

You're describing what you think would happen in a situation that is different from reality. That's the very definition of a hypothetical. In any case this doesn't address the argument being made. Why should the similarly of human and nonhuman ear muscles despite our minimal ability to use them not be evidence for descent from a nonhuman ancestor? Perhaps this might have to wait until we resolve the point below.

No specific pattern is evidence for evolution, since so many could have been accommodated.

Sure, but remember that evolutionists are using the specific stratigraphic fossil ordering as evidence, not simply that an order exists at all. As far as public-relations goes, they know that wouldn't be persuasive enough, so evolutionists have to lead the public to believe that every major animal group is fossilized right where they expect it to be. That is one of the biggest illusions buttressing popular acceptance of evolution theory.

You've missed the point of the analogy though. Remember that you contend that because the specific pattern of the fossil record could be different (e.g.birds are most closely related to ceratosaurs rather than to maniraptorans) and still fit within the evolutionary framework, no specific pattern can be considered evidence for evolution. But this is like saying that because assemblage X could show that Australia was attached to North America instead of Antarctica, we can't consider the fact that there is any relationship apparent at all to be evidence that the continents have shifted greatly.

I suppose vestigiality (since it is a term already equivocated into oblivion) can mean either one.. if evolutionists believe they can still get away with a "zero function" position, then they'll go for it. If function is later identified, they'll just sidestep over to their "little function" position.

So what would be your response to this example in the context of this latter definition? Arguing that the muscles may perform some subtle, unidentified function does suffice in this context.

 

[lifepsyop]

I did just grab a random finch image without checking it. Here are some of the Galapagos varieties. In any case, I think it would be odd to suggest the same principle observed at the Galapagos wouldn't also apply to the varieties seen with the honeycreepers.

 

[sfs]

Then what you are saying is you had no clue to what was being discussed, but decided to chime in anyways and just accuse people of deception?

I accused no one of deception. The only one who's accused anyone of deception was you. Remember?

Accuse me of posting pictures not about finches in a discussion that then wasn't about finches?

I said nothing about you posting anything, including a picture of a finch.

And the picture has a finch in it, life just used it for quick reference because in the post he got it from of mine we were discussing breeds in general.

Although I'll give 10 to 1 odds if we put them together they'll eventually interbreed.

Honeycreepers very rarely interbreed -- as I said in my original response.

Since even the Hawaiian honeysuckle is in reality a Finch.

I know. That's why I thought he was talking about the picture. He said something about finches, and posted a picture of finches. They just turned out not to be the finches he was talking about.

 

[sfs]

I did just grab a random finch image without checking it. Here are some of the Galapagos varieties. In any case, I think it would be odd to suggest the same principle observed at the Galapagos wouldn't also apply to the varieties seen with the honeycreepers.

The difference is that the honeycreepers are more diverged genetically than the Darwin's finches, if I remember correctly, and do form clearly delineated species. The most diverged among them are roughly as different genetically as humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Why would a flipper be useless to a whale? It is perfectly suited to what the whale is and it's environment. Oh, oh, you mean from what you believe was once a land mammal and evolved into a sea animal, even if all life evolved from the oceans? Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince us we were once germs in a sea?

So didn't flippers in reality evolve long before legs? So why even under evolution would I assume flippers were vestigial structures when those structures evolved long before the structures they are supposed to be vestigial to?

And wouldn't going back to a previous evolutionary stage be devolving, not evolving?

I think you'll find that I never argued that vestigial structures lacked function.

 

[lifepsyop]

The difference is that the honeycreepers are more diverged genetically than the Darwin's finches, if I remember correctly, and do form clearly delineated species. The most diverged among them are roughly as different genetically as humans and chimpanzees.

Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.

Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.

Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html

You need to read up on "ring species". There is more than one example of a series of subspecies that could breed with their "next door neighbor" but the species at the ends of the ring can't breed. They are called this because there are examples where the ends of the ring meet. It can be seen as speciation in action.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

First of all, it is absurd to characterize these traits as 'evidence' for common descent.

Of course its not absurd. You just wish it was absurd.

Evolutionists say the presence of those ear traits are because they were conserved from a distant common ancestor.
If those ear traits were absent then evolutionists would say natural selection removed them.
If they were unique in humans then evolutionists would say natural selection selected novel traits in a hominid lineage.

And we can watch these traits coming and going. For example, the muscle that lifts the tail in mammals is on its way out . . . some people have it (uselessly) and some people don't. The extra toes on the legs of horses . . . now reduced to shin splints . . . on their way out. The wings of Kiwis . . . now reduced to hidden tiny things . . . on their way out.

They are evidence for common descent in the same way that being able to predict a penny will land on heads or tails is evidence for one being psychic. Of course evolutionists love to use this type of illusion of evidence.

Sure, like we enjoy using ALL THE OTHER evidence, as well. You enjoy complaining it isn't true. And you are wrong.

That being said, evolutionists have shown a disturbingly unscientific trend of labeling any trait whose function is not readily apparent as being "vestigial" for the sole purpose of trying to score points for their theory. Important functions have since been discovered in some of these "vestigial" traits, like the human appendix for example.

I'm not so sure how "important" it can be since nobody who has one taken out seems to miss it. It has its immunological functions . . . as does the whole digestive tract anyway.

At first, evolutionists characterized "vestigial" traits as being useless left-overs... they then quickly changed their tune so that "vestigial" means "only some function".. thus moving the concept of vestigiality into the realm of total equivocation and ambiguity, the evolutionists' favorite camping spot.

No, its perfectly plain the coccyx was inherited in that shape because formerly in another species it was a tail. That you deny this doesn't take away its value as evidence . . . it takes away your validity as an interpreter of evidence.

As far as the ear muscles go, just because there may be no apparent function for them, does not mean no function exists. Even if they serve no purpose in a fully developed human, that does not mean the developing tissues do not play some role in organizational or embyronic stages of the developing human.

We give you what you claim you insist on, an example of a vestige with no current use, and you STILL deny its a vestige or counts as evidence. Plainly you are not driven by the evidence, something else drives you to deny the evidence.

In any case, I'm not in the least bit concerned of somehow proving what they are there for, as the evolutionist's argument is so woefully inept to begin with.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will ignore your denials and continue to expand our understanding of God's creation as revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

As for evolution involving mankind, we've got vestiges (which you deny) we've got shared damaged genes across species (which you deny) we've got shared retroviral inserts across species (which you deny) we've got extinct predecessor species (which you deny) and we've got documented time lines consistent with the time needed for evoltuion (which you deny).

You know what I think? I think no matter how good the evidence, no matter how much of it there is, as long as it supports evolution you will deny it. Am I wrong about that? Would good physical evidence suffice to convince you?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.

Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html

Do mules show that horses and donkeys are the same species? Remember that mules are generally sterile. Does their ability to mate and have offspring show a distant common ancestral species?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Quite right. Our ancestors were humans.

And primates. And mammals. And Tetrapods.

DNA confirms human common ancestry because we already know humans descend from humans.

If we already know it, then we wouldn't need DNA to confirm it.
But you are wrong off course. DNA confirms that not only do we share ancestors with humans, we also share ancestors with chimps. And bonobo's. And gorilla's. And lions. And just about every other eukaryote.

No assumptions need to be made here.

Indeed, no assumptions necessary. It's all in there, in that DNA molecule.

Genetic similarity will not tell you that humans and fish share a common ancestor.

Indeed it won't. But phylogenies, nested hierarchies, WILL.

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.

There's nothing "mystical" about "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat" coupled with the laws of large numbers.

There's nothing to "assume" about facts in the DNA and phylogeny.

 

[lifepsyop]

We give you what you claim you insist on, an example of a vestige with no current use, and you STILL deny its a vestige or counts as evidence. Plainly you are not driven by the evidence, something else drives you to deny the evidence.

Forgive me, but sometimes it can be very difficult to see things through the eyes of an evolutionist. You apparently hold the understanding that a bald assertion is the same thing as undeniable evidence. I just don't know how to respond to that.

 

[lifepsyop]

And primates. And mammals. And Tetrapods.

Humans are classified as primates, mammals, and tetrapods. So yes, again, humans descended from humans.

If we already know it, then we wouldn't need DNA to confirm it.

DNA confirms specific relations of different human lineages. There are no assumptions to be made because we already know humans descend from humans. We are confirming the details of something that was never in any dispute. This is a very simple concept.

We don't need to believe that the Darwin fairies transformed humans into different types of creatures over time in order to confirm DNA relations of different humans. This is the fundamental Darwinian assumption you always have to hide and pretend isn't there but it is plain to see.

But you are wrong off course. DNA confirms that not only do we share ancestors with humans, we also share ancestors with chimps. And bonobo's. And gorilla's. And lions. And just about every other eukaryote.

Sorry, I do not equate imagination with confirmation.

Indeed, no assumptions necessary. It's all in there, in that DNA molecule.

Sorry, I do not share in that hallucination.

Indeed it won't. But phylogenies, nested hierarchies, WILL.

Not at all.

There's nothing "mystical" about "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat" coupled with the laws of large numbers.

No there isn't. It's when you believe that those processes build humans, lions, elephants, etc. out of fish over time that you are waist deep in Darwinian superstition.

If it wasn't your only shred of hope for having a materialistic explanation for biodiversity, you would see how ridiculous and unscientific it is in an instant. But since it is your only hope, evolutionists simply gather around each other and reassure each other that it is plausible and demand that everyone accept it as self-evident.

Sorry, but I am just not that gullible.

There's nothing to "assume" about facts in the DNA and phylogeny.

Based on what you've said so far, we can assume you're labeling your assumptions as "facts".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Humans are classified as primates, mammals, and tetrapods

So are chimps, gorilla's and bonobo's. There's a reason why we share that nested classification. And the reason is not arbitrary.

So yes, again, humans descended from humans.

And primates. And mammals. And Tetrapods.

DNA confirms specific relations of different human lineages. There are no assumptions to be made because we already know humans descend from humans.

Knowledge is demonstrable.
The exact same method that is used to demonstrate common ancestry between 2 humans, is used to demonstrate common ancestry between a human and a chimp.

You cannot argue against the latter without arguing against the first.

We are confirming the details of something that was never in any dispute. This is a very simple concept.

You should go the extra mile in your analysis and not stop at your a priori beliefs.

We don't need to believe that the Darwin fairies transformed humans into different types of creatures over time in order to confirm DNA relations of different humans.

You actually do, if you understand what you are talking about - but you obviously don't.

The exact same data that confirms that humans share ancestors, also confirms that humans and chimps share ancestors.

This is the fundamental Darwinian assumption you always have to hide and pretend isn't there but it is plain to see.

It's not an assumption. It's genetic fact.

Sorry, I do not equate imagination with confirmation.

You equate nothing at all. You just have a "holy book" and run with it.
Whatever data you encounter that fits this a priori belief is accepted and all the data that contradicts it, you reject out of hand.

Which is what leaves you with the self-contradicting statements you are making here...

When DNA shows that humans share ancestry, you agree cause it fits your a priori beliefs.

But when the exact same DNA shows in the exact same way that humans share ancestors with chimps - then all of a sudden it's invalid. Why? Cause it doesn't play nicely with your a priori beliefs.

This is a clear sign of selective acceptance of evidence (or of plain old intellectual dishonesty).

Sorry, I do not share in that hallucination.

DNA is a very real molecule, I can assure you that it's not a hallucination.

Not at all.

Please explain how nested hierarchies are not evidence of biological evolution.

No there isn't. It's when you believe that those processes build humans, lions, elephants, etc. out of fish over time that you are waist deep in Darwinian superstition.

No, that's a logical outcome of "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat" in combination with the laws of large numbers.

There's nothing in the DNA of lions etc that makes it impossible to develop by that exact mechanism over time.

And everything about the pattern of this DNA (the nested hierarchies) confirm over and over again that it happened through exactly that process.

You can stay in denial if you absolutely want to, but don't lie.

If it wasn't your only shred of hope for having a materialistic explanation for biodiversity

I don't need "hope". I don't even need an explanation (materialistic or otherwise). I need understanding and intellectual integrity.

Biodiversity happens to be explained quite well by biological evolution theory. I accept that, because it's the rational thing to do.

I don't "want" to accept it. I don't particularly "like" it. I don't have any emotional attachments to any scientific theory. My only goal (in this context) is to be justified and rational in my beliefs.

But since it is your only hope

"Hope" for what?

evolutionists simply gather around each other and reassure each other that it is plausible and demand that everyone accept it as self-evident.

I would never demand anyone to accept anything as self-evident.
I want people to reach rational conclusions based on rational evidence.

Sorry, but I am just not that gullible.

Right, you prefer to believe in bronze-age faith-based myths. That's not being gullible at all.... :-/

Based on what you've said so far, we can assume you're labeling your assumptions as "facts".

No. Determining blood-relationships based on DNA is anything about assumption.