Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[PsychoSarah]

Oh no, that's a cop out, since I specifically have stated from the start that my belief in God is just that, belief. I am not claiming that it is science.

Science backs my faith, because science declares that ALL life propagates after it's own kind. So unless you can show me scientific evidence that this is not true??????

If you can't, then you are relying on faith more than I am, since science backs my claim and not yours. It was "you" that was complaining about "faith". So show me your science without your faith? I can show you my faith backed by science, you have seen it in every mutation experiment ever done. In every fossil ever found that is the same from the oldest one to the newest one.

I can show you every E. coli ever experimented with, is and always has been E. coli. What can you do? Ask me to have faith in opposition to that science, not in accordance with it. Your faith has no substance to it at all, is in opposition to every experiment ever performed and every piece of evidence ever gathered.

My faith tells me that "The earth became desolate and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Science says a meteor or comet caused that extinction my Bible declares occurred before man and agrees with me since man is never found earlier.

Science has declared that soft tissue exists on dino fossils, not rare, but more and more and more as the years go by.

Soft tissues on dinosaur fossils is exceedingly rare, and the date you gave later is strait up wrong. I am sure that evolution is going to seem like a religion when all the information you get about it comes from sources as biased as a Chick Track. We don't have to literally watch a lizard give birth to a bird to observe evolution, if that were the case then I guess the continents aren't moving either because you can't literally watch it happen. I guess you can't agree that I am typing because you couldn't watch me do it. You want to know what these things have in common? We can see the effects they leave behind long term, we even use evolution to make flu vaccines (specifically flu vaccines, it isn't necessary for all vaccines for the predictive power of evolution to be used).

Evolution is the observation that species change over time, no more, no less. And if you consider evolution, one of the most well supported scientific theories ever, a religion, then you might as well consider all science a religion.

 

[USincognito]

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.

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if there's a psychological component to Creationism or, if there's a certain psychology that is particularly attracted to Creationism.

If anyone is interested, let's follow this one back.

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

The last link is to Horner's TED talk.

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

Note how I mention Horner specifically in this post.

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

Responding to my post discussing Jats and Horner.

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????

Here Jats, who is having trouble following the conversation, starts talking about his misunderstanding of the novel gene paper.

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.

I correct Jats by telling him what post lesliedellow was commenting on and...

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.

How can Creationists expect us to take them seriously when they can't even keep track of a conversation?

 

[lasthero]

I don't think JATS isn't following the conversation so much as he doesn't care about the conversation. It's like he has this list of things he thinks are bulletproof, and he'll use any excuse to trot it and start ranting, even if the subject in discussion has very little to do with them. He's talking AT you, not TO you.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if there's a psychological component to Creationism or, if there's a certain psychology that is particularly attracted to Creationism.

If anyone is interested, let's follow this one back.

The last link is to Horner's TED talk.

Note how I mention Horner specifically in this post.

Responding to my post discussing Jats and Horner.

Here Jats, who is having trouble following the conversation, starts talking about his misunderstanding of the novel gene paper.

I correct Jats by telling him what post lesliedellow was commenting on and...



How can Creationists expect us to take them seriously when they can't even keep track of a conversation?

Oh well. Justa has always spouted nonsense, but when he was trying to rewrite every physics text book in the universe, at least it was his own nonsense (some of the time). Now he just copies and pastes other people's nonsense.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think JATS isn't following the conversation so much as he doesn't care about the conversation. It's like he has this list of things he thinks are bulletproof, and he'll use any excuse to trot it and start ranting, even if the subject in discussion has very little to do with them. He's talking AT you, not TO you.

Oh well. Justa has always spouted nonsense, but when he was trying to rewrite every physics text book in the universe, at least it was his own nonsense (some of the time). Now he just copies and pastes other people's nonsense.

Yeah. It's to the point where responding to his nonsense isn't even worth it for the lurkers.

Time to update one of my lists it appears.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your post is unreadable.

To those that don't want to hear what it said perhaps.

[/quote]The fact is that on a Family level, and you chose that level, we are in the same family as other great apes. What is your complaint?[/quote]

Show me and quit telling me made up stories.

Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Superfamily: Hominoidea"

"Families †Proconsulidae
†Afropithecidae
Hylobatidae
Hominidae"
Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Family: Hominidae"

You can't even decide what Family Apes belong to, so list 5 of them, lol. Covering your bets????? Playing the field so you might get one right in the future???? Are you saying Apes evolved from 5 different families? Or are you saying you have mixed it up so badly by claiming different breeds as separate species, you no longer know what to think any more?

Besides, you have no Genus for Apes, a requirement for family.

Family (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In biological classification, a family (Latin: familia, plural familiae) is a taxonomic rank between order, and genus."

As I said. You have purposefully left confusion to reign supreme, so you can claim whatever you want when it comes to birds and humans and apes.

That you shot yourself in the foot again? Don't worry, as long as you are a creationist and try to use real science that will continually happen to you.

You mean as long as we have to use your mixed up definitions, that can't even get them in the right order? the same people that think Neanderthal was a separate species, instead of just another breed like you observe in every single animal alive today that you can actually study?

All you have ever observed is different breeds of the same kind, but then you imagine they are different species in the past where DNA can not be used to show the truth.

You mean when we play the gap game right????

Why do you think that there are not clear reasons for including humans in with the other great apes?

Shall we use DNA? Mice share almost all of our DNA too, should we place them in the same Family as well?

genetics - Do humans share 99% of their DNA with rats? - Skeptics Stack Exchange

""About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."....

...Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies."


So you would have a better chance of convincing me mice are our same Family. At least then you'd be in line with the data, instead of against it. lol.

So lets talk about families and DNA shall we???? let's talk about mice that are closer to us genetically then great apes shall we? let's talk about why you don't want to place them in the same Family, shall we?

Isn't it you evolutionists that once made such a big deal out of that "claimed" 99% match, that turned out to be less than mice themselves?????? Lol, that's a good one, isn't it. That's so absolutely funny it's just outrageous. Seems the more we learn, the less evolutionists actually know what they are talking about.

Even creationists have done that. Linnaeus was the first to classify humans as great apes. He did it for all of the reasons that you think were ignored.

Everybody makes mistakes. And many a prior evolutionists has spoken out against evolution. They did it for all the reasons you ignore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Justa your post is almost totally illegible. Part of that is because you are terribly wrong and you do not understand the simple articles given to you. So let's keep this try again.

You are the one who suggested that "kind" should be on the family level. I correctly pointed out that you have admitted defeat if you do that since we are in the same family as Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Our family is hominidae (Great Apes). Our super family adds gibbons and is called hominoidea. This article goes into detail on human taxonomic classification:

Biological Classification / Taxonomy


Let's see if a copy and paste works:

Domain - Eucarya - Multi-celled with nucleus
Kingdom - Animala or Metazoa - Can move around, specalized sense organs,...
(Subkingdom) - Metazoa or Eumetazoa - Distinguishes the rest of the animals from sponges
Note: The second classification above, K: Metazoa and SK: Eumetazoa, tends to be more popular now.
(Branches) - bilateria: coelomate: deuterostome
(Grade) - Bilateral - bilaterally symmetrical (left/right)
(sub-grade) - Coelomata - True body cavities
(SuperPhylum) - Deuterostomia - Develop (embryo) mouth second
Phylum - Chordata - Hollow nerve cord
Some places show SuperPhylum = Chordata and
Phylum = Craniata - bilateral symmetry, bone and/or cartilage
(Plants use Division instead of phylum)
(Subphylum) - Vertebrate - backbone
Euteleostomi - Bony vertebrates
(Superclass or Infraphylum) - Gnathostomata - jawed vertebrates.
Newer, cladistic, classifications include 3 other levels here:
Teleostomi (Dermal bone, fin rays)
Euteleostomi (bony vertebrates)
Sarcopterygii (Lobe-Fin)
Tetrapoda - Four footed gnathostomes - Can live on land.
Class - Mammalia - Hair, Mammary glands for nursing young
(Subclass) - Theria - Live births.
All mammals except monotremes - egg laying e.g. platypus.
(Infraclass) - Eutheria - Placental (unborn children carried in the uterus)
(SuperOrder) - Euarchontoglires
Order - Primate - (Monkeys) - Binocular vision (forward eyes) - opposable thumbs
(Suborder) - Haplorrhini (Anthropoidea & Tarsiodea) - Simple dry nose
Rotating sholder and elbow joints allowing them to swing from their arms.
(Infraorder) - Catarrhini - Downward facing, narrow nostrils
or Simiiformes
(Parvorder) - Catarrhini
(Superfamily) - Hominoidea (Apes) Absence of tails, rounded molars, color vision.
Family - Hominidae - (Great apes) - Complex social behaviors, larger body,
Skeletal modifications for semi-upright posture, 32 teeth
(SubFamily) - Homininae (hominines) - Gorilla, Chimp, Human
(Tribe) - Hominini or hominins - canine tooth, which looks more like an incisor.
Toe bone improved for moving bipedally.
Genus - Homo "man" - Larger brain
Species - Homo Sapien "wise" - Language, more sophisticated tools.

 

[EternalDragon]

Justa your post is almost totally illegible. Part of that is because you are terribly wrong and you do not understand the simple articles given to you. So let's keep this try again.

You are the one who suggested that "kind" should be on the family level. I correctly pointed out that you have admitted defeat if you do that since we are in the same family as Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Our family is hominidae (Great Apes). Our super family adds gibbons and is called hominoidea. This article goes into detail on human taxonomic classification:

Biological Classification / Taxonomy


Let's see if a copy and paste works:

Beating us over the head repeatedly with a similarities chart again?
As if that is supposed to be convincing us of what? That there are similarities in creation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Beating us over the head repeatedly with a similarities chart again?
As if that is supposed to be convincing us of what? That there are similarities in creation?

More than just "similarities". And you know it. But beating the foolish over the head with evidence, yes I am.

So what scientific evidence do you have that supports your beliefs? We all know that justa has none. This is supposed to be a scientific debate and in a scientific debate evidence is king.

 

[Split Rock]

Shall we use DNA? Mice share almost all of our DNA too, should we place them in the same Family as well?

genetics - Do humans share 99% of their DNA with rats? - Skeptics Stack Exchange

""About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."....

...Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies."


So you would have a better chance of convincing me mice are our same Family. At least then you'd be in line with the data, instead of against it. lol.

So lets talk about families and DNA shall we???? let's talk about mice that are closer to us genetically then great apes shall we? let's talk about why you don't want to place them in the same Family, shall we?

Isn't it you evolutionists that once made such a big deal out of that "claimed" 99% match, that turned out to be less than mice themselves?????? Lol, that's a good one, isn't it. That's so absolutely funny it's just outrageous. Seems the more we learn, the less evolutionists actually know what they are talking about.
.

I see one reason why you appear to be so befuddled... your sources are befuddled. "About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," does not mean we share 99% or our DNA with mice. A "counterpart" is a homologous gene. It is not identical, but similar. For example, all species have cytochrome oxidase, but the sequence is not the same in all species. We happen to share more identical genes with chimps than with any other species, including mice. The link you cited is chock full of comparisons between apples and oranges. It not only compares homologous genes with gene sequence similarity, it also compares gene sequences similarity with total DNA similarity. Only a small portion of most species (including humans) are actual coding genes. In a nutshell, the link is a mess.

 

[Dizredux]

More than just "similarities". And you know it. But beating the foolish over the head with evidence, yes I am.

But he has been hit over the head with evidence so much that I fear for TBI.


Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

More than just "similarities". And you know it. But beating the foolish over the head with evidence, yes I am.

So what scientific evidence do you have that supports your beliefs? We all know that justa has none. This is supposed to be a scientific debate and in a scientific debate evidence is king.

We have the same evidence you have. What you think is king is your interpretation of said evidence. Look outside of the box.

 

[lasthero]

We have the same evidence you have. What you think is king is your interpretation of said evidence. Look outside of the box.

Some people interpret the Earth to be flat or hollow with a star inside.

You can interpret evidence any number of ways. That doesn't mean they're all equal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have the same evidence you have. What you think is king is your interpretation of said evidence. Look outside of the box.

Of course the problem is that every creationist or flood believer's attempt to make a working paradigm using their interpretation of the evidence has failed. The evidence contradicts their claims. So you may "interpret" the evidence differently. That does not really matter since those interpretations have been shown to be faulty.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Multiple individuals from the same transitional species are still transitional.

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.

I am not the one who believes in magical poofing. That would be you.

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

Based on what criteria?

Then why do you still list Tigers and Lions as separate species, when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring?????

Show me the wild population of fertile hybrids. Show me that a tiger is just as likely to mate with a lion as they are a tiger.

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.

Why isn't mammal a kind, or vertebrate? Why aren't humans a subspecies of the mammal kind?

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.

Snakes and humans are both subspecies of the Amniote kind.

Amniote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Separated by what?

And every time you say it's still a mammal, you are playing the name game.

And every time you say "it's still a Felidae" 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.

Whenever you fail to recognize that they don't interbreed, and do not have gene flow between their wild populations, you are playing the name game.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have the same evidence you have. What you think is king is your interpretation of said evidence. Look outside of the box.

We can demonstrate that our interpretation is better. It makes accurate and testable predictions. Your interpretation does not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Beating us over the head repeatedly with a similarities chart again?
As if that is supposed to be convincing us of what? That there are similarities in creation?

NESTED HIERARCHY

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me and quit telling me made up stories.

Family Hominidae:

"Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the ape superfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)."
Hominidae (anthropological family) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

More to the point, chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans. If chimps and orangutans are in the same family, then humans must be in that same family by DNA alone. We humans are within the genetic diversity of apes.

We are just a subspecies of ape using your terminology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Shall we use DNA? Mice share almost all of our DNA too, should we place them in the same Family as well?

genetics - Do humans share 99% of their DNA with rats? - Skeptics Stack Exchange

""About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."....

Do creationists really think they can getaway with nonsense like this?

Do creationists not understand the difference between 99% sequence similarity and 99% of of humans genes having a homolog in the mouse genome? Do creationists really think those mean the same thing?

...Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies."

Chimps still share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans. If the genetic variation with apes is defined by chimps, gorillas, and orangutans then humans are apes because we fall within that variation.

So you would have a better chance of convincing me mice are our same Family.

What is stopping taxonomists from creating a superfamily that includes rodents, primates, and other mammals?

What do you think is so special about the level of Family that is not found at other taxonomic levels? Why do you never understand the arbitrary nature of all taxonomic groups above species?

So lets talk about families and DNA shall we???? let's talk about mice that are closer to us genetically then great apes shall we?

That's a lie. A really big lie. Your reference says that 99% of human genes have a homolog in the mouse genome. That is not the same as a 99% match at the base level. Never has been the same. Never will be the same. If a mouse and human genome are 80% similar at the base level they are considered a 100% match for homology. Do you understand this or not?

Everybody makes mistakes.

You have made a rather bad mistake here, in claiming that mice share more DNA with humans than chimps do. Are you going to fix that mistake?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....