Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Loudmouth]

Watch the video example of plasticity as there were a lot more changes than just color.

Read the paper discussing the mutations that produce the dark coat color.

 

[Smidlee]

Read the paper discussing the mutations that produces the dark coat color.

What the video and you realize the phenotype has the ability built-in to make changes to it's own DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

What the video and you realize the phenotype has the ability built-in to make changes to it's own DNA.

No, it doesn't. Now you are really making stuff up. Phenotypic plasticity is the range of phenotypes that you can get from a single DNA sequence. Pocket mice changing fur color is not one of them. The dark mice and light colored mice had different DNA sequences.

 

[pat34lee]

We have real life evidence.

What does that prove other than someone can put skulls in some type of order that looks viable? There is no proof that they are related or that the ages go along with the order. Many could be extinct races of man, no different from us than neanderthal or any alive today.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does that prove other than someone can put skulls in some type of order that looks viable?

Actually, they were put in order of how old they are, but thanks for noticing the obvious evolutionary trend.

There is no proof that they are related or that the ages go along with the order. Many could be extinct races of man, no different from us than neanderthal or any alive today.

Doesn't change the fact that there were species with a mixture of human and ape features which is evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

No, it doesn't. Now you are really making stuff up.

Noble, still an evolutionist, explain example of what I'm referring to:
http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

Most of the phenotype plasticity is changes in the epigenetic code of the DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Noble, still an evolutionist, explain example of what I'm referring to:
http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

Noble is big into epigenetics which does not involve a change in DNA sequence. The light and dark mice are due to different DNA sequences, not epigenetics.

 

[Smidlee]

Noble is big into epigenetics which does not involve a change in DNA sequence. The light and dark mice are due to different DNA sequences, not epigenetics.

Noble does in fact mentions the phenotype making changes to it's DNA. This goes against the central dogma.

 

[pat34lee]

First, by determining if life falls into a nested hierarchy since we observe that common design does not produce a nested hierarchy. [/URL]
Life falls into an objective nested hierarchy. Designed things don't.

First, why would you think that designed things don't fit into a nested heirarchy? Can you prove it could not happen?

Second. Unless you do DNA tests of all fossils, how do you know which are related but don't look alike or which look similar but are totally unrelated?

 

[pat34lee]

Of course you won't post examples.

As I said. And you proved me correct.

 

[bhsmte]

As I said. And you proved me correct.

I proved you correct that you will not post examples, correct.

 

[pat34lee]

Of the 3% of the genome that is coding DNA, we are more than 99% identical. In the other 97% we are more than 96% identical, if you include indels. If you look at just substitutions, we are about 98% identical in the non-coding portion of the genome.

Where are you getting that? Nothing recent for sure.

Today, the number varies from 85 to below 70%.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=9851

 

[pat34lee]

I proved you correct that you will not post examples, correct.

No, that if you honestly wanted to know, you could look it up. You didn't, and you aren't.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that if you honestly wanted to know, you could look it up. You didn't, and you aren't.

I didn't make the claim, you did.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually, they were put in order of how old they are, but thanks for noticing the obvious evolutionary trend.

Of course they look good. So did the horse charts until they were proven to be a fraud. Still they stayed in textbooks for decades after that.

Doesn't change the fact that there were species with a mixture of human and ape features which is evidence for the theory of evolution.

Besides the ages being guesswork, features are highly prone to confirmation bias. Remember that over 100 years ago, people were killing Australian aborigines and selling their bones to museums because they were not 'modern' humans.
http://www.ipoaa.com/unrelenting_struggle__of_indigen.htm

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you prove that primates and man (any two animals of different kinds for that matter) ever had a common ancestor? There is more evidence for common design than common ancestry.

Agreed. But that's why 90% of the fossil record is incorrectly classified by them. For example: Knowing how life propagates in the real world by breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species;

Would a rational person conclude that these were merely different breeds as per empirical observation, or different species against every observation?

If they ever get around to correcting their mad dash to name things and get their names in the books, they could begin to make sense of it. Find all those things they have named separate species really aren't. That those missing links are not missing - any more than they are missing when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. That when all of that Fairie Dust was blown away - all that would be left to theorize upon would be Kind after Kind.

And all they have to do is start correcting their quite obvious mistakes, especially when it comes to finches that have all been proven to be interbreeding from the start. Dispelling that notion that speciation ever occurred in the first place and they are one and all merely different breeds of the same species.

Just correct those wrong classifications of "ring species" - which one and all came about from adaptations to local conditions - making them merely infraspecific taxa - subspecies - again, not separate species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Just follow their own rules of classification and stop ignoring them like they do the world around them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To those who want to believe in evolution. It's make even more sense that the origins of virus came from ERV than the other way around since living cell can reproduce.

People don't "believe in" evolution. People accept it as being correct. You need to remember there is no scientific evidence at all that supports your views and literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

And no, you sentence about viruses makes no sense at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they look good. So did the horse charts until they were proven to be a fraud. Still they stayed in textbooks for decades after that.


Besides the ages being guesswork, features are highly prone to confirmation bias. Remember that over 100 years ago, people were killing Australian aborigines and selling their bones to museums because they were not 'modern' humans.
http://www.ipoaa.com/unrelenting_struggle__of_indigen.htm

The horse charts were never shown to be a fraud. You are listening to dishonest people.

And no, the ages are not guesswork. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

[Smidlee]

People don't "believe in" evolution. People accept it as being correct. You need to remember there is no scientific evidence at all that supports your views and literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution.

And no, you sentence about viruses makes no sense at all.

Yeah right. Here is someone who take out the evolution assumptions and the evidence still make sense.

"It's long been known that DNA from so-called retroviruses make up around 5 percent of our genetic makeup.

But for years, this was dubbed junk DNA with no real use, and was considered to be a side effect of evolution -- until now.

New research suggests that, over the course of evolution, the viruses took an 'increasingly firm hold' on how cells work, and they may have made brain cells in particular more active and dynamic, ultimately making us smarter.

In particular, the study from Lund University in Sweden claims that inherited viruses, which are millions of years old, play an important role in building up the complex networks that characterise our brains."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...irus-genes-DNA-helped-brain-cells-evolve.html

Retroviruses made us smarter? They have to be joking.

Common sense version :

"It's long been known that DNA from so-called retroviruses make up around 5 percent of our genetic makeup.

For years, this was dubbed junk DNA with no real use, and was considered to be a side effect of evolution -- until now.

New research suggests that, over the course of evolution, the what we once thought were viruses and a form or parasitic, junk DNA took an 'increasingly firm hold' on how cells work, and they may have made are actually important genetic elements that play a vital role in making brain cells in particular more active and dynamic, ultimately making us smarter.

In particular, the study from Lund University in Sweden claims that what we once thought were mere inherited viruses, which are millions of years old, are actually normal DNA sequences that play an important role in building up the complex networks that characterise our brains."

The evidence doesn't need evolution

 

[pat34lee]

Would a rational person conclude that these were merely different breeds as per empirical observation, or different species against every observation?

And all they have to do is start correcting their quite obvious mistakes, especially when it comes to finches that have all been proven to be interbreeding from the start. Dispelling that notion that speciation ever occurred in the first place and they are one and all merely different breeds of the same species.
Just follow their own rules of classification and stop ignoring them like they do the world around them.

I'm trying to shorten the quote but still keep enough to build on. Besides naming closely related breeds with several names, many different size reptiles with different names are actually baby, juvenile and adult dinosaurs of the same type. This could actually explain some on the chart you had here.

"not everyone agrees with all of his hypotheses, especially his startling contention that Torosaurus, a horned dinosaur with a large frill, is really an adult Triceratops."
http://scienceline.org/2012/02/one-dinosaur-too-many/​