Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

[Loudmouth]

Hi all,

Darwinian evolution is not evidenced period.

How is Darwinian evolution not evidenced by the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequence?

 

[SkyWriting]

I feel I did not get an answer to my questions. Are you saying I made a straw man?

no

 

[Loudmouth]

I can do better. Thanks!

Science, stories, and sense‐making: A comparison of qualitative data from a wetlands unit

Puppets: Bringing Stories to Life in Science.

Six ways scientists can become storytellers (and why they should)

Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science

Science stories: risk, power and perceived emphasis

Try peer reviewed papers, please.

 

[Loudmouth]

The recreation of past events in your mind is imaginary.

How are the nested hierarchies imaginary?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me put it this way,

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell:

• Evolution in the sense that things change = is evident because we can observe change. (micro-evolution & natural selection)
  
• Evolution in the sense that all life including bananas came from a single cell and eventually morph into humans or other things like bananas = Fantasy.
  
• Darwinian Evolution is pseudo-science.

Trying to fit the evidence into the theory isn't good science, it's not even bad science, it's actually anti-science.

Please show how the nested hierarchies are fantasy.

 

[SkyWriting]

That not only doesn't make those people look any better, but it makes them out to be lazy people that won't check their sources, or stupid people that don't recognize strawmen for what they are.

Neither lazy nor stupid. All of knowledge requires some faith in the source.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have seen some straw man arguments put forth. But few do it intentionally.
Most just repeat what others say without putting much thought into it.

Says the person who can only link to other websites while not forwarding their own argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be silly.

"Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein's Theory"

LIGO Members Testify Before US Congress on Gravitational Wave Discovery

LIGO has cost American taxpayers about $1.1 billion. That is how much the
National Science Foundation has spent on the project
over the past 40 years

Did you forget that those gravity waves were created in the past?

 

[SkyWriting]

How are the nested hierarchies imaginary?

Becasue you create the architecture in your imagination.

 

[SkyWriting]

Says the person who can only link to other websites while not forwarding their own argument.

A little research into postings I've made would show that to be incorrect.
http://www.christianforums.com/members/skywriting.255843/#postings

But because you challenge my comments so often, it is likely
that I spend as little time as possible and jump straight to my
sources.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Neither lazy nor stupid. All of knowledge requires some faith in the source.

And there is a degree of doing that which is exceedingly unprofessional. There are ways to fact check information well enough that the chances of error are minuscule enough that having two instances of errors in a row would be practically impossible... unless done on purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me know how it is used here:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_03

"In science, all ideas are tested with evidence from the natural world, which may take many different forms — from Antarctic ice cores, to particle accelerator experiments, to detailed descriptions of sedimentary rock layers. You can't move through the process of science without examining how that evidence reflects on your ideas about how the world works — even if that means giving up a favorite hypothesis."

Funny how they mention ice cores which is evidence from the past that scientists use to reconstruct past climates.

But since you insist . . .

Hypothesis: It is proposed that modern species came about through the branching process of evolution. For complex eukaryotes, there is little to no horizontal genetic transfer so the dominant mechanism is vertical genetic transfer. This should create a nested hierarchy, both for morphology and DNA sequences.

Evidence from the natural world: The distribution of physical characteristics and DNA sequences can be used to determine if they fall into the same objective nested hierarchies with statistical significance. They do.

Conclusion: Species evolved.

Can you please show me how this does not follow the scientific method as described?

 

[Loudmouth]

Any research into posts I've made would show that to be incorrect.
http://www.christianforums.com/members/skywriting.255843/#postings

So let's see it. Please show me a single peer reviewed paper that says nested hierarchies are not valid scientific evidence for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither lazy nor stupid. All of knowledge requires some faith in the source.

Every single observation used for testing the theory of evolution through the nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA sequences can be collected by anyone. You can observe the morphology of the species yourself. You can sequence the DNA yourself. No faith needed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Becasue you create the architecture in your imagination.

That is a claim. Please SHOW how life does not form a nested hierarchy. Give me an example of numerous eukaryotic species that do not fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[SkyWriting]

And there is a degree of doing that which is exceedingly unprofessional.

There are many professing faith in evolution with no research skills at all.
Pretty much the definition of exceedingly unprofessional.

 

[Loudmouth]

Skywriting,

From YOUR reference:

"This case study highlights these aspects of the nature of science:

• Science can test hypotheses about events that happened long ago.
• Scientific ideas are tested with multiple lines of evidence.
• Science relies on communication within a diverse scientific community.
• The process of science is non-linear, unpredictable, and ongoing.
• Science often investigates problems that require collaboration from those in many different disciplines."

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/alvarez_01

 

[Loudmouth]

There are many professing faith in evolution with no research skills at all.

We have the evidence. No need for faith.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are many professing faith in evolution with no research skills at all.
Pretty much the definition of exceedingly unprofessional.

That exists in both sides, I don't contend that. However, that sort of material rarely makes it through to scientific journals, and when it does, it gets fixed rather quickly.

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe Hoghead1 referred to people in general and how we deal with claims from different sources.

Not sure which of my posts you are referring to. But yes, I do agree with that.