Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Justatruthseeker]

None of those are chimps or orangutans, and none of them are within the variation of H. sapiens. You fail on both accounts.

You mean none of them are "listed" as the same species, but then you have known problems with your defining of species.

So it is no surprise that you still have quite a few errors left to correct.

"Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks."

But you'll just continue on as you have been, telling Fairie Dust tales, while at the same time claiming what you claimed before, even though you know it's false. Showing me those same textbook stories that should be wiped from them.

Multiple individuals from the same transitional species are still transitional. H. erectus is a transitional species. Adding more individuals to the species does not stop them from being transitional.

No, H. erectus is just another "breed" of the "kind" human. Just as the poodle is another "breed" of the "kind" Canidae.

Already got it right. Separate species are populations that do not interbreed.

Then why do you still list Tigers and Lions as separate species, when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring????? Discovered after you had already listed them as separate species. Mainstream always talks about "Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks", but just never seems to get around to doing so, so those that should know better, but don't, keep repeating the same old Fairie Dust they did before.

They don't interbreed in the wild at a rate needed to significantly change the gene pool of either species. They are separate species because their gene pools are isolated from one another.

Doesn't matter. You have an option for that:

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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)."

So you are welcome to list them as subspecies, of the "kind" Canidae. Or you can list the Lion or Tiger as a subspecies of one or the other.

Mammals evolved from jawed vertebrates, and they are still jawed vertebrates.

Might as well claim all creatures with eyes are the same species. Since there is no way in the world you could ever breed a man with a snake, which also has a jaw, it's totally irrelevant as a classification with any meaning whatsoever.

Also, there are several known transitional tetrapods.

The origin of tetrapods

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/760/F1.large.jpg

Yes, yes, once again the top three are clearly separated from the others, just as with your human tree, only connected by your imaginary game of gaps.

Every time you say, "It's still a ___blank____" you are playing the name game.

And every time you say it's still a mammal, you are playing the name game. Every time you say two interbreeding animals are separate species, you are playing the name game, because clearly they must one or the other be a subspecies of the other at the least.

"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).

We have already seen what you do when you are shown the fossils that do fill the gaps.

You haven't shown any. Just ones seperated by tremendous gaps. Clearly different kind.

All you need is re-arranging to produce both the chimp and human genomes from a common ancestor.

And yet nothing seems to be doing anything of the sort in any of the kinds, from the largest to the smallest. After billions of life-cycles, even your E. coli are still E.coli.

And there is the name game.

So only you are entitled to play that game with your mammals, species, phylum, kingdom, etc., etc? I believe the Bible called them "kind" long before you ever thought of classifying them as anything. I have prior right of claim of a classification long existing.

It isn't an illusion. The nested hierarchy is real.

It is, if you consider different "breeds" of dogs and cats and humans, within the same kind as a nested hierarchy. And that would be a valid assumption. As long as one understood that all Canidae are Canidae, all Felidae are Felidae, and all Human, be they Neanderthal or Peking, are H. Sapiens, or subspecies thereof. Or more properly you could say modern man is a subspecies of the kind Homo.

Why would being made out of the same elements from the periodic table cause life to fall into a nested hierarchy? Please explain. Why would it cause the distribution of orthologous ERV's to produce a nested hierarchy?

How could it cause anything but? If they are all variations of the same "kind" it must necessitate they have a hierarchy back to the original one, as the fossil record clearly shows, as do modern cats and dogs.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qMTSgnaw2Bc/UEHFsOGf-tI/AAAAAAAAACU/vVnWkxpZ9Qc/s1600/hg.jpg

Anything else we start the game of gaps game.

You do realize that they form that nested hierarchy because they share a common ancestor, right?

Sure they do, all Canidae share a common ancestor, as do all Felidae, that much is clear in modern and even the fossil record. But then the gap game begins and we imagine links across the ages where none have ever been found. What you then imagine is real is that those two "kinds" share a common ancestor.

That each kind shares a common ancestor and varies within that kind is not in question. That they then magically morph into different kinds, is. When after billions of generations of even simple bacteria, all you get are variations, or different "strains", of the same exact "kind".

The data is not in question, just your flawed interpretation of it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's why your evolutionist in your link clarified the issue.


http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/ful...2813%2900315-X

"Here, we investigate generic and specific effects by measuring growth-related variables and reporter expression in genetic variants of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli)"

Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes

""and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences).""


Because you ignore the clarification:

i.e. - Wiktionary.

"From Latin i.e., an abbreviation of id est (“that is&#8221....

i.e. is used to explain, clarify or rephrase a statement..."

So be sure to clarify those statements of new information being created, "that is" they were assembled from previously existing sequences."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's why your evolutionist in your link clarified the issue.


http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/ful...2813%2900315-X

"Here, we investigate generic and specific effects by measuring growth-related variables and reporter expression in genetic variants of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli)"

Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes

""and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences).""


Because you ignore the clarification:

i.e. - Wiktionary.

"From Latin i.e., an abbreviation of id est (“that is&#8221....

i.e. is used to explain, clarify or rephrase a statement..."

So be sure to clarify those statements of new information being created, "that is" they were assembled from previously existing sequences."


So we agree that the first "kind" be it human or dog or cat, was genetically perfect, and then through mutation varied within their kind. Some genes lost, but new variations always coming from what was already there. Oh, that's right, you don't agree. You think the first life was simple and then through magic made what did not previously exist, even though mutation of what already exists is the only thing you have ever observed.

 

[USincognito]

You mean none of them are "listed" as the same species, but then you have known problems with your defining of species.

Hey look everyone Jats is ignoring a correction and continuing to spam a link again.

It's almost as if just 12 hours earlier I hadn't posted a link taking Horner's opinion to task.

It's also ironic that he talks about the species problem as if it were some fatal flaw when it's not. The Creationist concept of "kind" however, is so lacking in explanatory and predictive power as to render the entire exercise folly.

No, H. erectus is just another "breed" of the "kind" human. Just as the poodle is another "breed" of the "kind" Canidae.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[USincognito]

So be sure to clarify those statements of new information being created, "that is" they were assembled from previously existing sequences."

That's a lot of chutzpah, taking my link, misunderstanding it and then trying to appropriate it for spreading your ignorance.

Novel* genes producing new proteins are "new information" by any reasonable definition of those words but, since you insist in using that phrase, how about you do this for us:

Please provide a quantifiable metric by which we can measure genetic "information" and determine if there has been a loss/gain or if "new" information" has been produced..


* Novel, in this case, means new. It's not a reference to a book.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's a lot of chutzpah, taking my link, misunderstanding it and then trying to appropriate it for spreading your ignorance.

Novel* genes producing new proteins are "new information" by any reasonable definition of those words but, since you insist in using that phrase, how about you do this for us:

Please provide a quantifiable metric by which we can measure genetic "information" and determine if there has been a loss/gain or if "new" information" has been produced..


* Novel, in this case, means new. It's not a reference to a book.

Except he clarified that new information statement and specifically told you it was made from sequences already existing. That you then want to try a PR campaign instead of accepting the truth is your personal problem of your personal belief system.

That you can't accept that those sequences already existed (when he clarified the issue to let you know that was the case) just shows your dogmatic religious beliefs in Fairie Dust.

Nothing was taken out of context, except your belief it was from sequences that never existed. That's the only thing taken out of context, by you. Any statements of new information have already been clarified as being from already existing sequences.

Quit crying over spilt milk and just accept the actual truth. Quit ignoring the data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hey look everyone Jats is ignoring a correction and continuing to spam a link again.

It's almost as if just 12 hours earlier I hadn't posted a link taking Horner's opinion to task.

It's also ironic that he talks about the species problem as if it were some fatal flaw when it's not. The Creationist concept of "kind" however, is so lacking in explanatory and predictive power as to render the entire exercise folly.



Wow. Just wow.

Because you ignored them the first time, as you ignore them this time, and the next, and the time after that too.

As you will always ignore data that falsified your Fairie Dust theory.

Kind has more explanatory power than species, since you do not even know how to properly define species. That's why once again you ignored the data.

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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)."

So why you call things new species when they are clearly merely subspecies against your own scientific definition, is beyond me, unless of coutrse you just want to promote Fairie Dust and ignore the actual science???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Several of those skulls have brain cases that are at most half the size of a modern human's; they are not different breeds of humans. Find me a "breed" of human today that has half the brain size of another human.

Which means what exactly??????

Or do you prefer dogs?

So it would be no surprise that if some breeds died out and you didn't know better, you would do the same things with cats and dogs you are now trying to do with humans.

EDIT:

The only difference is that dogs and cats were manipulated by man and took hundreds of years, verses the natural cycle which could take thousands, and be mistaken by some as being evolution of new species. Instead of what we know is true, different "breeds", varieties or subspecies, within that same "kind".

 

[lesliedellow]

It's almost as if just 12 hours earlier I hadn't posted a link taking Horner's opinion to task.

You don't seriously expect Justa to go a whole day without contradicting himself, do you? How wonderfully naive of you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't seriously expect Justa to go a whole day without contradicting himself, do you? How wonderfully naive of you.

Except you are the only one contradicting yourself. Your own scientist felt compelled to clarify the issue and tell you all that new information came from pre-existing sequences.

The only contradiction is why you can't accept the truth????

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except you are the only one contradicting yourself. Your own scientist felt compelled to clarify the issue and tell you all that new information came from pre-existing sequences.

The only contradiction is why you can't accept the truth????

Accept the truth? What, of god? Sure, I can see how it would seem weird that we don't all accept the far more appealing humans are the greatest thing on earth and just belief alone is enough to get us eternal paradise after death deal, in fact I have been trying to believe generally that for years. The reason why there are people who don't accept these literal biblical interpretations is that they aren't true.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Accept the truth? What, of god? Sure, I can see how it would seem weird that we don't all accept the far more appealing humans are the greatest thing on earth and just belief alone is enough to get us eternal paradise after death deal, in fact I have been trying to believe generally that for years. The reason why there are people who don't accept these literal biblical interpretations is that they aren't true.

I don't care if you believe in God or not. Just accept the truth that you have never once observed anything creating nothing from anything that didn't previously exist, and you certainly have never observed one species becoming a new species.

All E. coli in every mutation experiment is always E. Coli. Just admit the truth, that the theory of evolution is as false as one can get, and is not supported by any actual data.

On the other hand all the data does support each kind reproducing after it's own kind - hence E. coli even after billions of generations of mutations are still E coli. So if you have an alternate theory that matches the data I'd like to hear it. But stop parroting that same old nonsense that none of the data has ever supported.

Believe what you want, just stop trying to pass off your Fairie Dust theory as fact, when not one single data set includes your interpretation. Not one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't care if you believe in God or not. Just accept the truth that you have never once observed anything creating nothing from anything that didn't previously exist, and you certainly have never observed one species becoming a new species.

All E. coli in every mutation experiment is always E. Coli. Just admit the truth, that the theory of evolution is as false as one can get, and is not supported by any actual data.

On the other hand all the data does support each kind reproducing after it's own kind - hence E. coli even after billions of generations of mutations are still E coli. So if you have an alternate theory that matches the data I'd like to hear it. But stop parroting that same old nonsense that none of the data has ever supported.

Believe what you want, just stop trying to pass off your Fairie Dust theory as fact, when not one single data set includes your interpretation. Not one.

So? I don't have to personally observe something for it to exist, if you go along that train be prepared to show me a picture of you taking a selfie with god.

 

[USincognito]

Except he clarified that new information statement and specifically told you it was made from sequences already existing.

Please explain - in detail and in your own words - what you think a "sequence" is and what you think an "existing sequence" is.

After that we can get back to you providing us with that quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic information".

That you then want to try a PR campaign instead of accepting the truth is your personal problem of your personal belief system.

This sort of huff and bluster might impress the rubes, but it's empty rhetoric and rather yawn inducing for most of us.

How about trying to argue substantively instead of raging and roaring?

 

[USincognito]

Except you are the only one contradicting yourself. Your own scientist felt compelled to clarify the issue and tell you all that new information came from pre-existing sequences.

The only contradiction is why you can't accept the truth????

He was referring to posting Horner's claims about Triceratops! No wonder no one takes you seriously. You can't even keep track of what's being talked about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

He was referring to posting Horner's claims about Triceratops! No wonder no one takes you seriously. You can't even keep track of what's being talked about.

No he wasn't. That paper was specifically brought forth in an attempt to claim new information was brought into being by magical evolution of non-existing material. Even when that very own paper qualified that statement by informing you that everything came about by pre-existing sequences.

That's why no one takes you seriously, none of you, because you can't even accept the truth of your own science.

And Mr. Horner's new knowledge throws your entire species classification system concerning fossils into clear doubt. Species that even down to the genetic level in E. coli has shown to be nothing but variation of what already existed within the genetic structure. That in every single mutation experiment ever performed, was the same exact species after mutation as it was before, just a new "strain" or "breed" or "variety" of what was before.

And then your misinformed cohorts want people to believe that different sized skulls prove evolution, when different sized skulls within kinds, shows nothing but variation amongst those "breeds" or "strains" or "variations"

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-43/#post66098027

A subject you can do nothing but run from, to distract the issue, because you are left out in the cold with every single false claim you have ever made. The only new information mistaken is on all of your parts, when you consistently ignore that new information, that came about from pre-existing sequences.

That new information which shows you can't even get baby dinosaurs, nor adults classified properly within your own species classification system. Your entire theory is a wash out, and needs to be consigned to the garbage bin where it belongs.

None of the data supports it in the least, when one takes away all the double-talk and unsupported claims. And hence you will continue each and every time to resort to personal attacks because you have no real evidence to support your theory at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please explain - in detail and in your own words - what you think a "sequence" is and what you think an "existing sequence" is.

After that we can get back to you providing us with that quantifiable metric by which we can measure "genetic information".



This sort of huff and bluster might impress the rubes, but it's empty rhetoric and rather yawn inducing for most of us.

How about trying to argue substantively instead of raging and roaring?

Its exactly what it was before it was turned from dormancy to dominance. Those specific sequences allowed the E. coli to process citrus, an ability already existing within it's genetic structure, just not used until you left it with no other choice but to digest a food supply it normally does not bother with, because little is gained compared to it's other abundant food supplies.

You created nothing new or novel, just turned on what already existed within the genome. That is all mutation can do, turn on or off or rearrange what already exists. The sooner you accept this truth, the sooner biology can get over it's false religion and back to science.

I think that sequence - that specific order of genes - was already existing, just like your scientist felt compelled to clarify, even when it went against his personal beliefs.

A scientist, that like every other scientist, knows those E. coli after mutation were still E. coli, and will still be E. coli 50 years from now after countless mutations. Have been E. coli after the last 50 years of countless mutations in the laboratory. Will forever be E. coli and nothing but E. coli.

You may further divide them into subspecies all you want, but they will always be of the Enterobacteriaceae kind. Will never mutate into virus, will never mutate into another type of life-form ever. They will forever be E. coli.

You have known nothing else, so why you continue to insist we disregard the data for Fairie Dust is beyond me?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So? I don't have to personally observe something for it to exist, if you go along that train be prepared to show me a picture of you taking a selfie with god.

Be prepared to show me an E. coli after mutation that is not an E. coli, if you want to claim evolution???


Oh that's right, you can't do that can you? You can't show me anything after mutation that still isn't the exact same kind after, that it was before can you? Just a different "strain", or "variety", or "breed", or "subspecies" of the exact same kind you started with.

We can take this with plants or animals. Show me a pea that isn't still a pea after countless mutation experiments upon it??? just one????? You have over 100 years of mutations experiments with peas, surely you can find me a single solitary one?

No? Then why are you supporting a theory that has no scientific support in the slightest?

No? So the gap game and imagination now begins. The required faith in things never once observed. That same faith you reject until it comes to "your" theory. Then faith is allowed and accepted, even encouraged. You really got no room to talk about faith, when your own theory requires it above all else, even above the very own science you "claim" to follow, but can't show me one single piece of real scientific evidence that backs your claim of evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Be prepared to show me an E. coli after mutation that is not an E. coli, if you want to claim evolution???


Oh that's right, you can't do that can you? You can't show me anything after mutation that still isn't the exact same kind after, that it was before can you? Just a different "strain", or "variety", or "breed", or "subspecies" of the exact same kind you started with.

We can take this with plants or animals. Show me a pea that isn't still a pea after countless mutation experiments upon it??? just one????? You have over 100 years of mutations experiments with peas, surely you can find me a single solitary one?

No? Then why are you supporting a theory that has no scientific support in the slightest?

No? So the gap game and imagination now begins. The required faith in things never once observed. That same faith you reject until it comes to "your" theory. Then faith is allowed and accepted, even encouraged. You really got no room to talk about faith, when your own theory requires it above all else, even above the very own science you "claim" to follow, but can't show me one single piece of real scientific evidence that backs your claim of evolution.

*waiting on you to present your selfie with god since you decided that the only way things can be tire or real is if we can personally see them.

 

[hopefinder]

Which religion couldn't be more wrong as regards evolution?