Couldn’t you see the next post? Your objections are clearly refuted in the Grant’s own words yet you plough on regardless. Who to believe, you or the Grants? It’s a conundrum alright!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Such spurious unsupported claims you make. Each and every time.
First you want to ignore your own scientific deffinition, then make unsupported claims the original population was somehow different, when the DNA shows the have the same DNA that was traced back to them. And corroborating data, dogs, shows they remain the same species as the original population....
Such spurious unsupported claims you make....
And then when asked to support your claims of speciation, can’t point to one single valid process.
Someone’s gone a bit quiet.
He's done the same to me in another thread. Bizarrely it came right after he was shown to be incontrovertibly wrong.
No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.Couldn’t you see the next post? Your objections are clearly refuted in the Grant’s own words yet you plough on regardless. Who to believe, you or the Grants? It’s a conundrum alright!
so if we will find a self replicating robot with DNA . will you agree that such a robot will be evidence for design?For it to be an actual penguin, it would have to be an actual penguin.
And the fact that you instantly recognize it as being not a real penguin, just makes the point.
Which makes it an artificial (not a real) penguin.....
No. You are being confusing again by interchanging words as if they are synonymous.
"not a real penguin" isn't necessarily a robot.
For example, here's a "not a real" penguin, which isn't a robot:
View attachment 215708
Nope.
Rather: a natural penguin is a real penguin. Not-real penguins are manufactured. Likely in factories. Sometimes, by (human) hand.
And not-real penguins are not "identical" to real penguins.
And this argument of yours, really has to be one of the most insane I've ever heared.
No, just unlike you two, I actually work for a living and dont spend all my free time on forums trying to promote your silly theory... that requires we ignore scientific definitions. But then that’s probably why you never link to scientific definitions to support your side.
In two cases, though, they could tell exactly where the insertions were, and they were not actually shared between species. There was no violation of the phylogeny, and the idea that this undercuts common descent is nonsense.
Bacteria represent an entire domain of life (one of the 3 domains).
This is what always gets me about creationists and "kinds". The further you move from humans, the broader the acceptance of evolutionary change becomes.
Of course not. An idea that is supported by a huge range of evidence isn't to be discarded when one piece of evidence against it turns up. It would mean that this was evidence against common descent (as commonly understood), and would therefore require further investigation.so if those cases were indeed violate the accepted phylogeny you will admit that evolution is false?
Of course not. An idea that is supported by a huge range of evidence isn't to be discarded when one piece of evidence against it turns up. It would mean that this was evidence against common descent (as commonly understood), and would therefore require further investigation.
Why do you keep referring to this study as if it provided some kind of evidence against common descent?
That's not remotely what I said. "A single piece of evidence won't overturn a well-supported theory" is very different from "This theory can't be falsified." And since we're dealing entirely with a fantasy world in which you actually have present evidence against evolution, why don't we get back to the real world?if so evolution cant be falsify. in any case you can say the same.
No, you don't -- you bring up something that is not counter-evidence at all. When informed that this paper is in no way evidence against common descent, you ignore the information and keep quoting it. Do you not understand the paper, or do you not care that what you're saying is false? Those are the only two choices that I can think of.because dogma hunter bring up this argument as evidence for evolution. so i bring up a counter evidence.
That's not remotely what I said. "A single piece of evidence won't overturn a well-supported theory" is very different from "This theory can't be falsified." And since we're dealing entirely with a fantasy world in which you actually have present evidence against evolution, why don't we get back to the real world?
No, you don't -- you bring up something that is not counter-evidence at all. When informed that this paper is in no way evidence against common descent, you ignore the information and keep quoting it.
"If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't."
If one dollar can't buy a cup of coffee, then two or three dollars won't buy a cup of coffee. Have you tried applying your approach to logic more broadly?if one evidence against evolution cant falsify it then also 2-3 evidence will not falsify it.
No, that's not at all the same thing. I said that we would find identical insertions in "random species" in the tree. What you're offering is a paper that notes that throughout virtually the entire tree of placental mammals, we do not find insertions (in this case of transposons) at random places in the tree. The paper is studying one of the "very few known examples of discordance" -- a set of closely related lineages at the base of this tree. Such closely related lineages are we can expect to find some discordance between trees under common descent, since it's in those situations that hybridization or incomplete lineage sorting can mix input from different branches.and i showed to you that this is indeed what we found:
so if we will find a self replicating robot with DNA . will you agree that such a robot will be evidence for design?
so if those cases were indeed violate the accepted phylogeny you will admit that evolution is false?
No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.
That the DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in question. That they are interbreeding right in front of their noses is not in question.
That they can’t accept those factual observations... and must ignore the very scientific definitions they claim they follow, as must you...... well, that says everything that needs said. That the science and data is irrelevant, just your theory is important. They can’t bring themselves to admit Darwin was wrong in his belief they were reproductively isolated.
No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.
That the DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in question. That they are interbreeding right in front of their noses is not in question.
That they can’t accept those factual observations... and must ignore the very scientific definitions they claim they follow, as must you...... well, that says everything that needs said. That the science and data is irrelevant, just your theory is important. They can’t bring themselves to admit Darwin was wrong in his belief they were reproductively isolated.
Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.Waiting for pshun24:
explain to us all how a single breeding pair of 'brown skinned (with the potential for lighter and darker shades) Indo-Parthean/Persian' people with 'perfect' genomes can breed and produce offspring with Asian, African, Nordic, Inuit, etc. phenotypes.
Just like we did with wolves you mean?All solely via interbreeding/inbreeding/hybridization (justa seems to want to use all of these interchangeably, so I will too).
Because you are still in denial.With your amazing genetics knowledge, explain to all of us - with supporting evidence - how a single inbreeding pair can yield offspring who then inbreed with each other and eventually we get all manner of variation, without mutation.
Justa has hinted (but not really brought it up since) that it was because these mythical, evidenceless 'perfect' genomes of Adam and Eve (no evidence for their existence) housed all of the "allies" necessary to get Asians, and Africans and etc.
You mean those that ignore scientific definitions, understood.I should know by now that you'll just keep spamming exactly the same thing in response to anything that anyone posts, I still find it surprising though for some reason. You're not fooling anyone apart from yourself.
Because you ignore the definitions. If they were never reproductively isolated they never underwent Speciation.No, we disagree because you can't accept their findings. You can quibble about definitions all you like but you can't show any evidence that demonstrates that these finches haven't evolved exactly as the TOE suggests.
And then you ignore it thereafter.Spare me your catchphrases.
Anyone familiar with any scientific studies of these finches is well aware of the extent of interbreeding.
When are you going to quit making excuses and provide which mode of Speciation that occurred. All dogs are descended from a common ancestor, same species. All humans are descended from a common ancestor, same species.Are you still whining about the taxonomic system? When are you going to realize that it is merely an convenient naming system that has no impact on the findings that demonstrate that these finches came from a common ancestor and have adapted to fulfill various niches in the islands through accepted modes of speciation.
Go read his books, you’ll find Darwin specifically states reproductive isolation. Your lack of knowledge of your own theory is incredible.How was Darwin "wrong in his belief" by the way? He didn't classify the finches as well you know, he simply collected the specimens which were classified by Gould on his return. Did Darwin ever claim that they were reproductively isolated? I would like to see evidence of this (as he only spent a few weeks on the island I don't see how, if he was mistaken, this would have any bearing on our current knowledge anyway).
You are fooling no one but yourself with this nonsense which boils down to "speciation hasn't occurred because they don't fit my narrow definition of species."
I'll say it again because you continue to pretend you don't understand.....
They have evolved from a current ancestor to exploit various niches on the island, some to the point of achieving reproductive isolation, some not..... a classic case of speciation.
The finch line ends on finches, until you insert those imaginary common ancestors that can never be found because of their non-existence.And they were created finches from scratch?
Go read his books, you’ll find Darwin specifically states reproductive isolation. Your lack of knowledge of your own theory is incredible.
You know, that’s why you tried to use allopatric Speciation which sadly requires reproductive isolation, which we all know from the DNA data never happened. Not that facts matter to evo’s.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?