Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Justatruthseeker]

You still don't understand how phylogenies work, do you? There are no species at the nodes of branches in a phylogeny. Also, we have all of the genetic evidence demonstrating that humans and chimps do share a common ancestor.

You claimed that those cars fit into a nested hierarchy. Let's see it.

On other words you have nothing but dogma and faith. You have not a single thing you can point to as the progenitor of both human and ape - except the one we are all to pretend existed. Nor do you have a single progenitor of any of those that supposedly split into all the different species - on any single evolutionary tree with any single species.

I showed you a clear progression of Chevy Camaro - a distinct design pattern from the first to the last, year by year, decade by decade. Ostrich Theory at work again.

 

[Smidlee]

As usual, when a creationist quotes someone, the best solution is to check the source.


The "problem" usually resolves itself. Graur may be right that the 2012 results of ENCODE would be a problem for evolution. It almost certainly would be a problem for much of our understanding of genetics. 80% functional genome? That's an insanely high number, completely out of line with all of the rest of nature and with much of what we understand in genetics. Of course, the problem here is that Graur's presentation, where he made that quote, is tearing down ENCODE. He (like a great many other scientists) thinks that ENCODE's 2012 result is a load of crap. From a mere five slides later (slide 21) in the presentation:

I never suggested Graur was in favor of ENCODE results as I thought that would be a given since the results went against his religious beliefs. He doesn't doubt his faith in evolution and materialism he of course doubt the evidence that goes against he's faith.
Thanks for clearly up the point I'm trying to make. The best evidence against evolution come from evolutionist.

 

[Loudmouth]

How can I do that when none exist?

No evidence exists that these fossils were produced by different breeds? Then why do you make that claim?

Have you ever seen a transitional form when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian?

Have you ever seen two breeds produce an australopithecine?

 

[Loudmouth]

I never suggested Graur was in favor of ENCODE results as I thought that would be a given since the results went against his religious beliefs. He doesn't doubt his faith in evolution and materialism he of course doubt the evidence that goes against he's faith.

Once again, you use faith as a term of mockery and derision. Why?

 

[Smidlee]

Once again, you use faith as a term of mockery and derision. Why?

What? I'm a person of faith so I'm not mocking faith.

 

[bhsmte]

I never suggested Graur was in favor of ENCODE results as I thought that would be a given since the results went against his religious beliefs. He doesn't doubt his faith in evolution and materialism he of course doubt the evidence that goes against he's faith.
Thanks for clearly up the point I'm trying to make. The best evidence against evolution come from evolutionist.

Sure, that makes perfect sense.................

 

[bhsmte]

What? I'm a person of faith so I'm not mocking faith.

If someone has a different faith than yours, then it is just a valid as yours then, correct?

 

[Smidlee]

Sure, that makes perfect sense.................

It's a perfect example of evolutionist disagreeing with evidence coming from other evolutionist that goes against their faith.

If someone has a different faith than yours, then it is just a valid as yours then, correct?

No since there is "truth". The faith closer to the "truth" is more valid than those that are farther from the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

On other words you have nothing but dogma and faith.

I have a phylogeny of shared and derived features. That is neither dogma nor faith.

Are you yet another Christian who uses faith as a bad word? Why?

You have not a single thing you can point to as the progenitor of both human and ape - except the one we are all to pretend existed.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

I have 200,000 ERV's found at the same location in the chimp and human genomes as proof of common ancestry. That isn't dogma. That isn't faith. That is real evidence.

I showed you a clear progression of Chevy Camaro - a distinct design pattern from the first to the last, year by year, decade by decade. Ostrich Theory at work again.

Show how they fit into a nested hierarchy like eukaryotes do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since when?

I like how you start off with something you made up from nothing.

What, can't remember what you claim from one post to the next because you make them all up on the spot?

On top of that, whales show up after land mammals. Another out of sequence example. We have land animals well before flowers and grasses, another big departure from the supposed sequence. The Bible has birds on day 5, and non-bird land animals on day 6. That is completely wrong.

Need I go on?

Now when you are shown evidence that grasses and flowers existed long before you label them in the record - suddenly you want to claim you didn't make the claim. The problem is some people actually read the posts Loud - and remember your silly claims, even if you do not.

So yes, you need to go on - on to actually stop making stuff up on the spot.

 

[bhsmte]

It's a perfect example of evolutionist disagreeing with evidence coming from other evolutionist that goes against their faith.

What faith?

 

[Loudmouth]

What? I'm a person of faith so I'm not mocking faith.

You did mock faith.

"He doesn't doubt his faith in evolution and materialism he of course doubt the evidence that goes against he's faith."-Smidlee

Care to explain?

 

[Smidlee]

What faith?

He's faith in materialism and evolution. If the evidence of ENCODE is right then his faith in man's evolution is wrong so he rejects the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

He's faith in materialism and evolution. If the evidence of ENCODE is right then his faith is wrong so he rejects the evidence.

Projection at its finest.

 

[bhsmte]

He's faith in materialism and evolution. If the evidence of ENCODE is right then his faith in man's evolution is wrong so he rejects the evidence.

Did you ask him if he agrees with evolution based on faith, or based on the objective evidence which would remove the requirement of faith.

When he tells me he agrees with evolution on faith, I will believe it. You can keep claiming what others think though, if it suits you.

 

[Loudmouth]

What, can't remember what you claim from one post to the next because you make them all up on the spot?

I am not the one making stuff up about the rate of fossilization of grasses and bones. That would be you. Got any references?

Now when you are shown evidence that grasses and flowers existed long before you label them in the record - suddenly you want to claim you didn't make the claim. The problem is some people actually read the posts Loud - and remember your silly claims, even if you do not.

There is a 240 million year gap between land animals and grasses, at least. That is not the order that Genesis has them in. Remember, it is the CREATIONISTS who are claiming that the order seen in the fossil record matches what is in Genesis. You seem to be arguing that we should just ignore the fossil record altogether.

 

[Smidlee]

Did you ask him if he agrees with evolution based on faith, or based on the objective evidence which would remove the requirement of faith.

When he tells me he agrees with evolution on faith, I will believe it. You can keep claiming what others think though, if it suits you.

"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is Wrong." Now he didn't prove the evidence was wrong he assumed it since it went against his faith.
Someone denying their faith doesn't make it not faith.

 

[bhsmte]

"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is Wrong." Now he didn't prove the evidence is wrong he assumed it since it went against his faith.

You would first need to prove, he agrees with evolution based on faith and not overwhelming evidence, which would remove the need for faith.

When you can do that, let us know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I have a phylogeny of shared and derived features. That is neither dogma nor faith.

Are you yet another Christian who uses faith as a bad word? Why?

because your faith is greater than mine. You have no evidence at all and still believe despite it, while I believe because of the evidence. I surely wish my faith was as great as yours!

Oh, so those similar appearances means related, but similar appearance of design is just illusion? Then why so eager to list all those things that are similar as separate things? Shared and derived features you share with every human being. The rest is just illusions.

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

I have 200,000 ERV's found at the same location in the chimp and human genomes as proof of common ancestry. That isn't dogma. That isn't faith. That is real evidence.


Show how they fit into a nested hierarchy like eukaryotes do.

Yes you do have a lot of ERV's. ERV's which are one and all foreign to the host (us, monkeys, every animal) and which carry foreign genomes across species lines.

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00101-1?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982211001011?showall=true

Seems you are all still living in the past.

So do you actually expect me to believe that a retrovirus that forms a defense against specific genetic sites, would not pass those defenses to its offspring, and those offspring would not seek out sites to which they already have a defensive mechanism against? Of course they attach at the same sites - they have defenses for those sites already in place.

I mean hey, who's ignoring his own theory of evolution now and inherited traits?

 

[Smidlee]

You would first need to prove, he agrees with evolution based on faith and not overwhelming evidence, which would remove the need for faith.

When you can do that, let us know.

It's simply pride that man wants to deny their faith so they can see themselves above others. The evidence is against evolution which is why he rejects it.
You have accuse others of this very thing that they reject scientific evidence to support their faith.