Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Justatruthseeker]

Are these breeds?

How do you explain that nested hierarchy? How do you explain the nested hierarchy of amniotes?

How could any rational person expect otherwise??????



In ID/creationism, why would thousands of mammal species, including humans, form a nested hierarchy. Why would hundreds of thousands of vertebrate species form a nested hierarchy?

By the simple fact that half of them are incorrect classifications. You imagine those links to exist where none do. Just like they incorrectly classified both baby and adult dinosaurs, half the claimed human lineage - and almost every breed of species that exists they incorrectly classified as separate species.

You can't justify classifying these as separate species:

When you know full well that all observations of the natural world tell you they are merely breeds of the same species.

How long are you going to ignore the world around us and continue with those incorrect classifications?

 

[Smidlee]

Those species fall into objective phylogenies. How do you explain that with ID/creationism?

Because of evolutionist imagination made it fix with imaginary creatures connecting the branches. I can easily explain it, it evolutionist using their IMAGINATION.

 

[Loudmouth]

And what did they do make a ERV cause by a virus to become fixed in the population?

Once you have an ERV being passed down vertically between generations, you have all you need. We have exactly that with koalas. We can track the appearance of ERV's in the koala population, and it matches a known retrovirus that is being passed between koalas.

I doubt the almighty power of natural selection evolutionist loves to believe.

So how do you explain the observation that adding antibiotics to a population of bacteria can cause the population to be dominated by a specific genotype in a specific gene?

 

[Smidlee]

Maybe you were not born a scientist after all.

Or maybe you are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

By the simple fact that half of them are incorrect classifications.

Then show how they are incorrect.

You imagine those links to exist where none do. Just like they incorrectly classified both baby and adult dinosaurs, half the claimed human lineage - and almost every breed of species that exists they incorrectly classified as separate species.

I could care less about the name they give them. They are transitional no matter what name you give them. Do you really think that all that matters is a name? Seriously?

Also, you haven't shown that any of those fossils has been incorrectly labeled as transitional. Not one.

 

[bhsmte]

Or maybe you are wrong.

You are a funny guy, don't change.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because of evolutionist imagination made it fix with imaginary creatures connecting the branches.

That is false. They are objective phylogenies. They aren't imagined.

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy​

 

[Smidlee]

Once you have an ERV being passed down vertically between generations, you have all you need. We have exactly that with koalas. We can track the appearance of ERV's in the koala population, and it matches a known retrovirus that is being passed between koalas.

I sure "appearance of ERV" just an illusion. Now If the phenotype has the ability to add "genetic code" from it's environment and arrangement it's own DNA then that goes against the Central dogma. DNA-R-US belief.

ERV then would not be an accident and not necessary evidence of universal common descent.

So how do you explain the observation that adding antibiotics to a population of bacteria can cause the population to be dominated by a specific genotype in a specific gene?

Antibiotic resistance as even your past link once admitted is not evolution since bacteria had this ability.

 

[Loudmouth]

I sure "appearance of ERV" just an illusion.

WE CAN DIRECTLY WATCH THE PRODUCTION OF ERV'S IN CELLS IN THE LAB!!!

What is so hard to understand about this?

Imagine if we did observe abiogenesis happening in the lab. I think we can all see that you would dismiss the whole thing until we showed how the matter came about that resulted in the first life, right?

Antibiotic resistance as even your link once even admit is not evolution since Bacteria had this ability

Not in the experiments I am talking about.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169282/

In those experiments, they started with a single bacterium. Just one. If it had the resistance gene, then nearly 100% of the subsequent offspring would be resistant. They weren't. Instead, only one offspring out of billions was resistant. All of this from a single bacterium as a founder.

 

[Smidlee]

That is false. They are objective phylogenies. They aren't imagined.

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy​

I already know evolutionist gets different trees when comparing different genes. They have to be very selective in order to fit their assumptions.

 

[Loudmouth]

I sure "appearance of ERV" just an illusion.

I am sure that you will run away from any and all evidence. Have a good day sir.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already know evolutionist gets different trees when comparing different genes. They have to be very selective in order to fit their assumptions.

Do they get trees where a chicken is more closely related to humans than chimps?

 

[Smidlee]

WE CAN DIRECTLY WATCH THE PRODUCTION OF ERV'S IN CELLS IN THE LAB!!!

What is so hard to understand about this?

Imagine if we did observe abiogenesis happening in the lab. I think we can all see that you would dismiss the whole thing until we showed how the matter came about that resulted in the first life, right?

If man can produce viruses doesn't explain the origins of genetic code of natural viruses.

Not in the experiments I am talking about.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169282/

In those experiments, they started with a single bacterium. Just one. If it had the resistance gene, then nearly 100% of the subsequent offspring would be resistant. They weren't. Instead, only one offspring out of billions was resistant. All of this from a single bacterium as a founder.

No one denies that bacteria can do something that engineers can do, use "trial and error" to find a solution but it often comes at a cost.

 

[Smidlee]

Do they get trees where a chicken is more closely related to humans than chimps?

Did not a evolutionist suggest something about man is the cross between a pig and a chimp? Everything goes in la-la land.

 

[Loudmouth]

If man can produce viruses doesn't explain the origins of genetic code of natural viruses.

WE CAN WATCH NATURALLY OCCURING VIRUSES PRODUCING ERV'S. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

No one denies that bacteria can do something that engineers can do, use "trial and error" to find a solution but it often comes at a cost.

So you admit that natural selection happens.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did not a evolutionist suggest something about man is the cross between a pig and a chimp? Everything goes in la-la land.

Please stop making stuff up.

 

[Smidlee]

WE CAN WATCH NATURALLY OCCURING VIRUSES PRODUCING ERV'S. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

And watch is become fit into the population. And where did this virus come from? from ERV from living cells?

So you admit that natural selection happens.

Yes to bacteria that can produce large populations in short time.

 

[Smidlee]

Please stop making stuff up.

I'm not making it up.

 

[Loudmouth]

And watch is become fit into the population.

And watch them be passed down to the next generation.

Yes to bacteria that can produce large populations in short time.

Now we move to mice.

How do you explain the fact that we find a high percentage of black mice on black lava rocks, and almost no mice on the light brown desert substrate that spans the areas between black lava rock deposits in the SW deserts?

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5268.full

 

[pat34lee]

How would someone get grant money, for something that was falsified with scientific evidence.

I understand, you really need to believe this is all a conspiracy, so go ahead.

I would post examples, but if you honestly wanted the truth, you could do it yourself.