Evolution/Creation on Trial

[USincognito]

What about when the evidence doesn't fit the evolutionist tree when they call co-evolution?

What? This sentence doesn't make sense.

Evolutionist has to be very selective in which genes to used as example or they will come up with the wrong tree.

Interesting claim since we have whole genome comparisons these days.

http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185
"But the genome sequencing has thrown up surprises, too. The standard view of the great-ape family tree is that humans and chimps are more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla — because chimps and humans diverged more recently. But, 15% of human genes look more like the gorilla version than the chimp version."

Oops!

Yeah Smidlee, Oops! indeed. You might want to try and keep up with the science.
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-speciation-and-incomplete-lineage-sorting

A problem for common descent?
The fact that gene phylogenies/trees and species phylogenies/trees don’t always match is not something that surprises scientists, since it is a well-known phenomenon and the mechanisms underlying it are understood: species arise from genetically diverse populations and that diversity does not always sort completely down to every descendant species. Discordant phylogenies, however, are commonly used among Christians as a means to cast doubt on to common ancestry and/or evolutionary biology as a whole. One example from the Intelligent Design movement will serve as an illustration. In a blog post discussing discordant trees found when comparing the human genome to that of other primates,​

This is from 2011. The Christian scientists at Biologos have been onto C/IDers for their ignorance and dishonestly for four years.

 

[USincognito]

So you admit then that science is being used to kill people not help them.

So's Law.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do not have the time nor the lust to argue with someone that clearly declares all biologist to be incompetent idiots and thus announce them self to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Like you who thinks anything scientist's say is right? What about when all of science declared the Milky-Way was the entire universe and had claimed facts to prove it then too? Your arguing from a logical fallacy. Known to be a logical fallacy.

You just don't want to discuss the evidence - you want to run and play the Ostrich Theory so you can continue to ignore the world around you.

All I said was; you missed my point. And I clarified how YEC's denies evidence in order to deny all evidence. I did not talk about you. I am also to tried atm to argue with you about your misunderstandings of what I said.

Oh I agree, they deny the evidence, just like you deny the evidence. All T-Rex remain T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. All Triceratops remain Triceratops. Just as all Asians remain Asians and Africans remain African. Until of course breed mates with breed and produces a new breed such as the Afro-Asian or T. Horridus or T. Prorsus. Which appear suddenly in the record just like Afro-Asians do - and no need to pretend there are missing links.

I dunno, ask a paleontologist or read a book on the subject if it is of interest for you.

I don't need to ask a paleontologist, because the top respected paleontologists already agrees you have misclassified so many things as separate species - even when they are merely babies or adults. And he hasn't even began to factor in breeds into the equation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting claim since we have whole genome comparisons these days.

That's right we do, so when are you finally going to admit that all of the claimed shared sites are where those ERV retroviruses have inserted - carrying that foreign genome?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"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."

You know every single retrovirus is foreign to the genome and carries foreign DNA across species lines.

https://www.genomeweb.com/researchers-find-evidence-horizontal-gene-transfer-mammals-reptiles

Experiment after experiment destroys the arguments one by one - weakening them more and more with every new discovery. But some still present that outdated theory of evolution that fails to meet reality as science advances.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hunter gatherers ate tons of meat and they likely consumed the fat as well and especially so if they were in a cold climate, because fat is an insulator and keeps the body warm.

Eskimos consume a very high percentage of fat and have little heart disease.

Actually they eat a lot of fish. Still if there is any validity to these studies then the problem seems to be with eating domesticated animals like cows, not wild game like the caribou.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you use a screw driver to hammer nails?

You can hammer screw and then remove them with a screw driver.

 

[Smidlee]

Actually, they don't. There's no particular reason why any given gene should necessarily be more or less similar. It's the overall pattern within the entire genome. It's entirely reasonable to think that when gorillas diverged, certain genes were conserved between them and the human ancestors, while that gene mutated in the chimpanzee lineage, for example. Also, you neglected to point out that most of those were in non-coding regions. I humbly submit that given that you know nothing about cladistics and very little about genetics, you might be misinterpreting the results of this study.

LOL. They were were surprised since the results were unexpected. How did I misinterpret their results?

 

[Smidlee]

We attack it as if it were bad science, because it is. Their definition of functional DNA includes junk DNA. Their definition in no way incorporates the fitness of the individual which is nonsense.

Because it goes against your world view. Instead of Junk DNA is now Junk RNA as the evolution god in push back to hide in the gaps of ignorance.

That's exactly what an acorn does to become an oak tree.

Metamorphosis is no different than human embryonic development, by the way.

It seem you don't know how metamorphosis works. It's totally different from human development. It's exactly as I wrote two completely different body plans from the same DNA.

 

[Smidlee]

What? This sentence doesn't make sense.



Interesting claim since we have whole genome comparisons these days.



Yeah Smidlee, Oops! indeed. You might want to try and keep up with the science.
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-speciation-and-incomplete-lineage-sorting

A problem for common descent?
The fact that gene phylogenies/trees and species phylogenies/trees don’t always match is not something that surprises scientists, since it is a well-known phenomenon and the mechanisms underlying it are understood: species arise from genetically diverse populations and that diversity does not always sort completely down to every descendant species. Discordant phylogenies, however, are commonly used among Christians as a means to cast doubt on to common ancestry and/or evolutionary biology as a whole. One example from the Intelligent Design movement will serve as an illustration. In a blog post discussing discordant trees found when comparing the human genome to that of other primates,​

This is from 2011. The Christian scientists at Biologos have been onto C/IDers for their ignorance and dishonestly for four years.

They have found so many surprises that over the years they are no longer surprise the evidence doesn't fit their assumptions. This is trying to make excuses knowing creationist knows they are having trouble making the evidence fit their theory. This is damage control.

"As you will see in the following quotations, they admit that every DNA analysis method gives a different result.
.......
How does one disprove the theory of evolution if all these contradictions with evolutionary expectations don't do it? How can it be falsified? If the findings of this study don’t disprove the theory of evolution, what will? The facts clearly don’t support the evolutionary hypothesis. There is “overall low congruence with the species tree.” They cherry-picked the data and got (in their words) “100% BS.”

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i4f.htm

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because it goes against your world view. Instead of Junk DNA is now Junk RNA as the evolution god in push back to hide in the gaps of ignorance.
It seem you don't know how metamorphosis works. It's totally different from human development. It's exactly as I wrote two completely different body plans from the same DNA.

That's because they want us to believe that 98% of the genome is useless. So now we are to believe that it functions like clockwork even though only 2% is functional and it is 98% error prone. Leaving one small random error to bring down the entire house of cards. They want you to accept that 98% is just useless genomes created from the very beginning, yet having no function, so they do not have to admit to the vast differences between every species. After all - they only have to look at 2% of the whole - with less than .1% of the 2% which they actually know the functions thereof. Basically 99.9% of the genome is totally unknown.

And that 99.9% is the magic number that is in all their theories - from evolution to cosmology.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

According to the Biology book: "a precise definition of species is not always possible". So it looks like science maybe having a bit of trouble knowing for sure just what a species is.

It is not the fault of the science of evolution that species don't form perfect boundaries. It is in fact a piece of evidence for evolution, since it is evolution that predicts one species can form from another. It is creationism that should demand hard and fast, always clearly defined, species definitions, and as you point out, reality does not provide that for us.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They have found so many surprises that over the years they are no longer surprise the evidence doesn't fit their assumptions. This is trying to make excuses knowing creationist knows they are having trouble making the evidence fit their theory. This is damage control.

"As you will see in the following quotations, they admit that every DNA analysis method gives a different result.
.......
How does one disprove the theory of evolution if all these contradictions with evolutionary expectations don't do it? How can it be falsified? If the findings of this study don’t disprove the theory of evolution, what will? The facts clearly don’t support the evolutionary hypothesis. There is “overall low congruence with the species tree.” They cherry-picked the data and got (in their words) “100% BS.”

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v19i4f.htm

That's why when they talk to the reporters and admit the truth - it's always we were surprised - or mystified - or baffled - by the results, from a theory supposed to have tremendous predictive power. And which always fails to meet the expectations and falsifies them by the very nature of their unexpectedness. Critical thinking is no longer used - instead it is group think - each reinforcing the flawed beliefs of a theory falsified over and over.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's because they want us to believe that 98% of the genome is useless. So now we are to believe that it functions like clockwork even though only 2% is functional and it is 98% error prone. Leaving one small random error to bring down the entire house of cards. They want you to accept that 98% is just useless genomes created from the very beginning, yet having no function, so they do not have to admit to the vast differences between every species. After all - they only have to look at 2% of the whole - with less than .1% of the 2% which they actually know the functions thereof. Basically 99.9% of the genome is totally unknown.

And that 99.9% is the magic number that is in all their theories - from evolution to cosmology.

I think your numbers are made up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

According to the Biology book: "a precise definition of species is not always possible". So it looks like science maybe having a bit of trouble knowing for sure just what a species is.

That's their cop-out so they can double talk themselves around Finches that have all been found to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Such a belief in speciation violates their definitions.

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

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."

In the case at hand, this definition - the prime definition is more than adequate, contains no ambiguity. Even if they didn't interbreed - speciation would be given lie to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
"There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another"

They are not isolated and have been interbreeding from the moment they arrived on the island, never once reproductively isolated from one another, never once undergoing speciation. Just a mistake in classification before they were even studied that they refuse to correct along with the other mistakes. Because the theory of evolution is mistake bult upon uncorrected mistake built upon uncorrected mistake.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I am not denying the evidence. I am not denying anything. I simply point out that science is not as sure of itself as you seem to think they are. Your claim that Biology is 99% sure of what they believe simply does not hold up.

You seem to lack a sense of what science is sure about and what science is unsure about. Science is quite sure about the reality of evolution, just as science is quite sure about the place of the sun in the solar system.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's why when they talk to the reporters and admit the truth - it's always we were surprised - or mystified - or baffled - by the results, from a theory supposed to have tremendous predictive power. And which always fails to meet the expectations and falsifies them by the very nature of their unexpectedness. Critical thinking is no longer used - instead it is group think - each reinforcing the flawed beliefs of a theory falsified over and over.

Finding out new, unexpected things is not a sign the science has collapsed, it is a sign the science is progressing.

Finding the expected whale transitional fossils was a prediction that MET EXPECTATIONS. Finding other transitional fossils has been, over and over, predictions that MET EXPECTATIONS.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think your numbers are made up.

I think you don't look it up because you don't want to find out the truth.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html
"Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

So in cosmology you treat 99.9% of the universe like a solid, liquid or gas, despite the fact not one single plasma physicist does so in any laboratory on earth - or in space for that matter. And then wonder why they had to shove in 95% Fairie Dust.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...rough-guide-to-the-human-genome/#.Vamgz_kjYig
"For years, we’ve known that only 1.5 percent of the genome actually contains instructions for making proteins, the molecular workhorses of our cells."

But they have not a clue as to what it does or how it does it - this is why they needed to sequence it. If they even understood what a fraction of that 1.5% did, there would be no need to sequence the DNA and study it at all. And then wonder why they have to shove in 95% Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You seem to lack a sense of what science is sure about and what science is unsure about. Science is quite sure about the reality of evolution, just as science is quite sure about the place of the sun in the solar system.

Which was in the Milky-Way which was the entire universe. They had math and observations then to prove that too - about the same time they told us where the sun was located, based upon the the belief of the Milky-Way being the entire universe, everything we see contained within - not at vast distances. Seems they were wrong about that one, but right about our position based upon that wrong belief, right?

 

[whois]

Then why do you argue so vehemently against evolution?

this one of the best questions you have ever asked.
i don't think it's so much against evolution, it's against the charade that surrounds it.
it seems to me, and i suspect a great many others, that there is some kind of "operation" to insist evolution over a divine spirit or whatever.
then again it might not be an "operation" at all and simply be scientists want to sane and logical about it.

you asked a related question earlier, why someone wants to keep creationism alive.
why not keep it alive?
does the concept really bother you that much?
this is the area of this debate that prevents truth.
it's the classic "us versus them".

my question is, why the hatred for god and creation?
i realize that science cannot make room for creationism, but that does not mean a person cannot do science and be a creationist.
that might answer your question, because creationist scientists will point out where evolution fails, and then when a noncreationist scientist points out failures they are labeled as creationist and either disregarded or ridiculed into oblivion.

the really big question is, what does all of this mean for evolution?
i'm at the point to where i can definitely say we have been lied to.
koonin brings home the fact that science has no clue whatsoever about how life originated, but yet we are led to believe that science has a working model.
i have found similar things equally unexplainable in regards to evolution.

and so it goes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Eskimos consume a very high percentage of fat and have little heart disease.

That is the results you would expect if evolution were true.