Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[lifepsyop]

What is really extreme about that potential falsification? Again, this is a possibility now and prior to even knowing any of the history of life that we currently now know. The model suggested & predicted we should find a specific nesting of life.

If such a fossil was found in such strata and it became apparent more and more like it were being found we would pretty much have to scrap the idea of descent with modification as it would make the entire model incoherent as to why we see such apparent descendants prior to the ancestors. As should be apparent, you can't have a workable model of descent with modification when the apparent descendants appear earlier in the fossil records than the ancestors.

This just shows you do not understand your own theory. There are no positively identified ancestors and descendents. There is a standardized phylogeny that has been generally constructed around the fossil succession, but as I've already pointed out, if the fossil succession were different, then the standardized phylogeny could have been developed differently to reflect it.

Yes, so what is wrong with such a potential falsification? Such fossils could be conceivably found.

For one thing, the "potential falsification" was only published after major fossil trends were already known. This makes it unimpressive at best.

This goes beyond just whales in the cambrian strata, all you need to find is that there is not apparent nesting of life, that the apparent descendant life that we see in the strata and in genetics actually appeared earlier than the supposed ancestors.

Again, you betray your fundamental ignorance of evolution theory. There are no objectively identified ancestral or descendent groups, and thus no objective "nesting of life". There is only a standardized concept of phylogeny that is subject to change.

For instance, if there were more fossil data unearthed to support Feduccia's lizard-bird ancestor/descendent relationship, then the morphology supporting the popular theropod-bird ancestor/descendent relationship could be adjusted to be interpreted as a series of morphological convergences towards bird-like traits. Thus while birds "nest" in dinosaurs today, they could conceivably "nest" in a whole different taxa tomorrow.

That would immediately falsify the model and ToE.

Demonstrably false.

To date no such evidence has been found & what is interesting is that in all the history of creationism that you'd think they would comprehend this understanding of what such a falsification would be and go about finding evidence that would falsify it in such a way.

This statement seems pretty meaningless coming from you, as you've shown yourself to be generally ignorant of evolution theory and its accommodating nature with regards to the "evidence".

Non-reproducing life would not make a lot of sense as one of the key properties of life is that it reproduces.

Way to miss the point. The universal reproductive quality to life wasn't known in ancient times. There could have conceivably been a type of life nobody had encountered that does not reproduce, perhaps a type of life that spontaneously generates from inorganic material, lives, and dies with no inheritance. (hey, the Evo-squad believed stuff like this not long ago)
Thus, by Genesis declaring that all of the living creation multiplies or brings forth after their kind, it presents a potential falsification.

Now I don't consider this strong falsification criteria at all. I'm just showing you how easy it is to come up with a "potential falsification". Therefore nobody should be that impressed that you're able to come up with a potential falsification for evolution theory, and it doesn't necessarily imply that the theory is robust by consequence. This is just more evo smoke and mirrors.

The actual truth is that the observed diversification and descent is apparent based on the observations in biostratigraphy.

False.

The Upper Paleozoic = Permian, a period of about 50 MY. The Paleogene, so ~23 MYA.

What? In evo-time the Permian to the Paleogene covers roughly 300 MYA - 70 MYA, so about 230 million year range. Within this range, mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, and bird groups could have appeared in entirely different trends in the fossil record and still have been accommodated. They could have all appeared relatively simultaneously in the Permian/Triassic and been explained as a rapid "explosion" of tetrapod diversification and adaptation to new ecological niches.

I don't see why it would be an issue in this hypothetical but given they are diversifying so much later all the patterns would be different and we wouldn't have as much apparent diversity comparable to what we see now.

It would just be explained as relatively rapid evolution/diversification of body plans, similar to how the Cambrian biota and other past lifeforms are viewed today. As a bonus this would probably even be used as an excuse for the lack of unambiguous transitions between anatomical systems.

They could but only as all the diversity is being moved till later dates we wouldn't see the branching in genetics or fossils as occurring in the permian and so on but rather later in the Paleogene.

The phylogenetic "branching" is based on imaginary ancestral nodes and is built in with all sorts of rescue devices for accommodating discrepancies, which I have gone over throughout this thread.

The examples and objections you're providing are not of descendants appearing in older strata which would consequently break down nested hierarchy and overall descent with modification.

False. Evolutionists can say that the ancestors did not happen to fossilize until after the descendents. This reasoning is employed by evolutionists today.

In other cases, the morphology lending itself to identification of the anachronistic ancestor or descendent could potentially be explained away as an independent convergence.

 

[Naturalism]

See above:

Sandwalk: Sequenced genomes contain thousands of "unknown" genes

"Up to 40% of these protein-encoding genes are "unknown" in the sense that no function has been assigned to their protein products."

In other words, the evidence of comprehensive knowledge of over 40% of the human genome is greater than your earlier assertion that we only understand less than 1% & 95% of it unexplored nor understood at all.

"The problem is we understand less than 1% of the genome, with 95% of it still unexplored and not understood at all."

Oooops.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, mutations change the DNA found in ancestors. That is how evolution works. How is this a problem?

No, "variation" through mutation of kind after kind is found only as far back as the rise of each new kind. They are the same with minor variation from the first T-Rex to the last T-Rex. That's what the fossil record shows, and that is what modern genetics is beginning to show as technology advances and we can begin to discern the true differences.

That tree is dissolving into the bushes (kinds) that have always been there waiting for technology to advance to the point where it could actually begin to discern the truth in the simplest forms of life, the complex still beyond our current limits.

Yes, just like a basal ape had the possibility to evolve into a human.

Except it never did because nothing has ever evolved into a new species.

If it was a variation, then every E. coli along the way would have been digesting citrate aerobically. A new gene sequence created by mutation is not an already existing variant.

Either uninformed or deliberately misleading.

Every E. coli after mutation is still E. coli. They are merely variation (what you choose to call breeds in animals). Deliberate or misinformed because E. coli along the way has had a smorgousborg of available food, so has not needed to digest citrus (as it's only food supply). Your reference for it's lack of preference for a harder to digest acidic substance is neither warranted nor supported.

Especially when we know the real deal without the double-talk, that they were assembled "from previously nonfunctional sequences."

We do.

Cases of Speciation



"Kind" is a made up term that has no biological meaning.

As "species" is a made up term that has no meaning, except to deliberately confuse the lineages. You still won't correct apparently wrong data in which two "breeds" that interbreed and produce fertile offspring, are listed as separate species.

If you won't correct your own known mistakes, what can one do but ignore a designation clearly full of and prone to errors of incorrect classifications?

An article you need to read.

"A recent slew of ENCODE Consortium publications, specifically the article signed by all Consortium members, put forward the idea that more than 80% of the human genome is functional. This claim flies in the face of current estimates according to which the fraction of the genome that is evolutionarily conserved through purifying selection is under 10%. Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 − 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means, . . ."

On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE



Many are functional? You and I have a different view of the word "many", and probably differ in the word "functional" as well.

Because a gene is "dormant" - non-functional, does not imply it will never be used. All that occurrs through mutation is genes are turned on or off, or sequences already existing are rearranged in the coding process. Now just realize that it's "from previously nonfunctional sequences" that those variations arose. All those sequences we are just realizing are not "junk" after all, merely unused at the present.

Which is why over 50+ years of mutational experiments with actual animals and plants, always in each and every case reached a variation limit.

Congratulations, you have achieved one viable variation in E. coli out of the limited viable strains available. Talk to me about E. coli in 50 years of extensive experimenting with it. It'll still be E. coli and your variation limit will be reached. But I understand you prefer your experiments that contradicted evolutionary processes not be mentioned.

But sadly sometimes it's those failed experiments (ones who's results didn't match theory) that say more than the successful ones. They tend to correct theory, it's only too bad who chose not to heed them.

Do you think a tv is functional simply because it can attract dust

Depends on what you define as functional. As a dust attractor, quite. Guess it would depend on those gene sequences as well as to what you consider as functional? Is dormant non-functional or just dormant? Is a back-up copy non-functional, or just waiting till it's needed in the repair process? Is the rest we don't know what it does non-functional -dormant, or only dominant - functional when mutations occur, causing variation?

 

[Naturalism]

There are no positively identified ancestors and descendents.

And the reasons why is that fossilization and preservation is exceedingly rare. Given that alone whatever fossils are found are always considered to be a representative of all the types of flora and fauna that were once around & not necessarily a direct link. In that any intermediates (Archeopteryx for instance) probably are not a direct ancestor but rather belong to a sister group, statistically that is more likely.

For one thing, the "potential falsification" was only published after major fossil trends were already known. This makes it unimpressive at best.

Yes, I suppose like the potential falsification for gravity in that after many of the initial observations held that gravity dictated that a body of mass "falls" towards the center of mass of other bodies. I guess we're just waiting on that single observation of car's or other objects floating away to falsify gravity.

That is ridiculous. A whale fossil in the Cambrian or likewise any descendant could still be conceivably found in older strata than the existing proposed ancestral basal groups today or in the future. All of which would put in serous doubt any notion of nesting or descent with modification. By all your rationale there should not even be any indication of any intermediate forms for any major or minor divergences or even any form evidence of them at all & yet there they are and in numerous places & in the strata (Tiktaalik for instance) where they ought to be.

There are no objectively identified ancestral or descendent groups, and thus no objective "nesting of life".

Sure there is. You're a Eukaryote, an Animal, a Mammal, & a Primate because life can be nested into clades.

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

For instance, if there were more fossil data unearthed to support Feduccia's lizard-bird ancestor/descendent relationship, then the morphology supporting the popular theropod-bird ancestor/descendent relationship could be adjusted to be interpreted as a series of morphological convergences towards bird-like traits. Thus while birds "nest" in dinosaurs today, they could conceivably "nest" in a whole different taxa tomorrow.

Right, if the evidence was conclusive of a different nesting then that nesting would be more in line with the evidence. Problem with that?

Demonstrably false.

By all means, demonstrate away how it could be accommodated in our current model to have numerous independent lineages of apparent descendants in older strata than the apparent ancestors. I want to see Hippo's in the Archean already darn it.

This statement seems pretty meaningless coming from you, as you've shown yourself to be generally ignorant of evolution theory and its accommodating nature with regards to the "evidence".

And there it is. The historical evidence in fossils and genetic supports and does not contradict the model and yet it could have in many times and places in the past. By your logic we should not even be able to find a single other hominids but yet there they are, where & when they ought to be and genetics supporting all of it to boot.

The universal reproductive quality to life wasn't known in ancient times.

Yup, that good old bible states showing striped patterns to a pregnant mother results in striped patterns on the offspring. Talk about swing and a miss.

Thus, by Genesis declaring that all of the living creation multiplies or brings forth after their kind, it presents a potential falsification.

And what is "kind" Mr. Creationist? Kind = Species?

False.

False how? Are you saying biostratigraphy is not accurate now?

In evo-time the Permian to the Paleogene covers roughly 300 MYA - 70 MYA, so about 230 million year range. Within this range, mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, and bird groups could have appeared in entirely different trends in the fossil record and still have been accommodated.

But that is not what you stated, you stated moving all of their diversification further into the Paleogene where compared with the Permian till now only ~23 MY would be around for their diversification. Basically taking away 90% of the time to evolve is going to change to outcome of that diversification.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7832934-post66054527/#post66054527

"The fossils trends could have been that mammals, reptiles, birds were rearranged completely differently throughout the Upper Paleozoic to after the Paleogene"

It would just be explained as relatively rapid evolution/diversification of body plans, similar to how the Cambrian biota and other past lifeforms are viewed today.

Except that if you move all the diversification as you'd stated to some 23 MYA as opposed to around the Permian 230 MYA you'd have a lot less evident diversification since there would be a lot less time.

The phylogenetic "branching" is based on imaginary ancestral nodes and is built in with all sorts of rescue devices for accommodating discrepancies, which I have gone over throughout this thread.

Sure, I would love to see how it would handle whales in the Cambrian. Care to explain how it could accommodate such a discrepancy?

False. Evolutionists can say that the ancestors did not happen to fossilize until after the descendents.

While conceivably possible it's not happened once in all the fossil finds that have ever been & there have been many and in many lineages where it could have happened. Would have been nice to see some dinosaurs in the Cambrian prior to any tetrapods though wouldn't it?

This reasoning is employed by evolutionists today

Personally, I like creationists reasoning. Suppose we start to ask for an alternative method of analysis whereby we can use it to know how life became so diverse. What do you offer Mr. Creationist? The proposal of a "god did it!" is such a laughable scientific non-starter. Forget testing the conclusion you can't even test the premise of the agent as the cause!

This is why in science natural causes are used as there has never been a single instance ever where the right answer turned out to be a supernatural god causing things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is really extreme about that potential falsification? Again, this is a possibility now and prior to even knowing any of the history of life that we currently now know. The model suggested & predicted we should find a specific nesting of life.

If such a fossil was found in such strata and it became apparent more and more like it were being found we would pretty much have to scrap the idea of descent with modification as it would make the entire model incoherent as to why we see such apparent descendants prior to the ancestors. As should be apparent, you can't have a workable model of descent with modification when the apparent descendants appear earlier in the fossil records than the ancestors.

What is your response? Nothing more than ID proponent Johnathan Wells has ever offered - Nothing. Just pretend none of the fossils matter and ignore them.

Are you blind or deliberately ignoring the fossil record? Show me a T-Rex that isn't a T-Rex from the oldest to the newest? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? Any, without resorting to the great gap imagination game?????????????

Yes, so what is wrong with such a potential falsification? Such fossils could be conceivably found.

And conceivably never be found since with over 400 million fossils in museums throughout the world, you have not a single one without resorting to the great gap, and we just haven't found them unscientific argument and declaration of dogmatic faith......

This goes beyond just whales in the cambrian strata, all you need to find is that there is not apparent nesting of life, that the apparent descendant life that we see in the strata and in genetics actually appeared earlier than the supposed ancestors. That would immediately falsify the model and ToE. To date no such evidence has been found & what is interesting is that in all the history of creationism that you'd think they would comprehend this understanding of what such a falsification would be and go about finding evidence that would falsify it in such a way. Instead they have predictably abandoned that and gone after absurd arguments from ignorance.

As long as we resort to absurd arguments of the gaps theory and how we just havn't found any of those intermediates yet, right????? As long as we can go from 20' to 80' in one giant leap and imagine all the ones that went between, right????? As long as we absurdly rely on that blind faith that one day they will be found, then it's ok to have faith??????????

No, the truth is that they would not. Consider just finding birds in the Archean layers. Instant falsification. Imagine finding that the decay rates as understood in physics demonstrates the earth is not 4.57 billion years old but only 50,000 years old. Instant falsification of ToE again.

Why would I expect to find birds there? The order of creation is exactly what is observed in the geological layers. Just repeated many times.

Why would I misinterpret the Bible like you and a lot of Christians too and believe the earth is young? The word translated was in Hebrew is Hayah, perhaps you should apply its meaning when you read those verses. Taken in context with "tohu wa bohu" found in only two other places together, both pointing to a once flourishing condition laid desolate and waste.

But the Bible clearly tells us that this once flourishing planet became desolate and waste, and darkness enveloped it from that cataclysm. Comet, meteor? Who knows. I have no doubt the earth is ancient. It was the beginning of His works of long ago. That is became desolate and waste and was restored is no great mystery. Except to science at one time until they learned of extinction events and then the creation of new life in EVERY SINGLE PAST EPOCH where destruction occurred.

Well, suppose we start to ask for an alternative method of analysis whereby we can use it to know how life became so diverse. What do you offer Mr. Creationist?

How about exactly what is observed???? Every Felidae still a Felidae, no matter its variation. Every Canidae still a Canidae, no matter its variation. Kind after kind. How about every E. coli still E. coli? Any of that sound familiar?????

That's ok though, I am sure the weight and historical accuracy of how well the "god did it" method/answer has & so much going for it that it's only a matter of time till we stupid materialists will give up methodological naturalism that has resulted in so many new advances in knowledge in favor for this timeless method of analysis.

As I am sure you understand life started how?????????? What process occurred? Call your blind faith in a miracle by any name you want and in the end you still need a miracle.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, "variation" through mutation of kind after kind is found only as far back as the rise of each new kind.

There is no such thing as "kind". It is something creationists made up.

That tree is dissolving into the bushes (kinds) that have always been there waiting for technology to advance to the point where it could actually begin to discern the truth in the simplest forms of life, the complex still beyond our current limits.

As it happens, humans and apes are in the same bush.

Except it never did because nothing has ever evolved into a new species.

New species are still evolving.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

Also, shared ERV's demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

Constructing primate phylogenies fr... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Every E. coli after mutation is still E. coli.

Every primate after mutation is still a primate. Every mammal after mutations is still a mammal. Every vertebrate after mutation is still a vertebrate. So why do you have a problem with humans sharing ancestry with all vertebrates?

They are merely variation (what you choose to call breeds in animals). Deliberate or misinformed because E. coli along the way has had a smorgousborg of available food, so has not needed to digest citrus (as it's only food supply). Your reference for it's lack of preference for a harder to digest acidic substance is neither warranted nor supported.

The experiment started with a single bacterium that did not have the genetic information needed to aerobically digest citrate. Through mutation and selection, the E. coli gained that genetic information.

That is evolution by every definition.

As "species" is a made up term that has no meaning, except to deliberately confuse the lineages. You still won't correct apparently wrong data in which two "breeds" that interbreed and produce fertile offspring, are listed as separate species.

Tigers and lions do not interbreed in the wild. The populations are genetically isolated which makes them different species, by definition.

The definition of species has never included the completely inability to produce a hybrid. It has always referred to genetically isolated populations.

If you won't correct your own known mistakes, what can one do but ignore a designation clearly full of and prone to errors of incorrect classifications?

I am not the one using incorrect terms.

Because a gene is "dormant" - non-functional, does not imply it will never be used.

The same could be said of real life junk. Your definition of "dormant" includes junk DNA.

All that occurrs through mutation is genes are turned on or off, or sequences already existing are rearranged in the coding process.

That's all that needs to occur in order to produce all of the biodiversity we see today from a universal common ancestor.

Which is why over 50+ years of mutational experiments with actual animals and plants, always in each and every case reached a variation limit.

You have already been challenged to discuss that paper with a real geneticist. You refused.

Depends on what you define as functional. As a dust attractor, quite. Guess it would depend on those gene sequences as well as to what you consider as functional? Is dormant non-functional or just dormant? Is a back-up copy non-functional, or just waiting till it's needed in the repair process? Is the rest we don't know what it does non-functional, or only dominant - functional when mutations occur, causing variation?

Dormant, as you define it, includes junk DNA and non-functional DNA. "'Dormant" is just a throw away term you use so you don't have to use the commonly used terms, which are junk and non-functional.

Also, there is no back-up copies. That is another thing you are making up.

 

[Mediate]

Are you blind or deliberately ignoring the fossil record? Show me a T-Rex that isn't a T-Rex from the oldest to the newest? Triceratops? Brontosaurus? Any, without resorting to the great gap imagination game?????????????

It would seem to me that this is a double standard. In an earlier post you said that species are terms made up to confuse lineages. The Phylogeny and Taxonomy of the Tyrannasauridae, part of Mezazoate Vertebrate Life, uses fossil records to show at least three distinct evolutionary branchings from the Allosaurus into the T-Rex, Spinosaurus and Gigantosaurus.

And conceivably never be found since with over 400 million fossils in museums throughout the world, you have not a single one without resorting to the great gap, and we just haven't found them unscientific argument and declaration of dogmatic faith......

I didn't quite understand that paragraph.

As long as we resort to absurd arguments of the gaps theory and how we just havn't found any of those intermediates yet, right????? As long as we can go from 20' to 80' in one giant leap and imagine all the ones that went between, right????? As long as we absurdly rely on that blind faith that one day they will be found, then it's ok to have faith??????????

Well, you seem smart, so you of all people should understand that finding every transitional fossil is inherently impossible, particularly from periods of cataclysm and immense environmental turmoil. However, there is overwhelming evidence in other palaeontological studies to show evolutionary mutation and natural selection. The biggest fundamental flaw in the argument against the fossil record, thus the argument against evolutionary branching, is that these arguments tend to ignore the actuality that all species, all the time, are transitionary. We simply call like organisms species.

To ask 'when is a T-Rex not a T-Rex' is a paradoxical question, because by our very method whereby extremely similar animals are grouped into species, a T-Rex cannot be anything other than a T-Rex, and if it is, we call it something else.

Why would I expect to find birds there? The order of creation is exactly what is observed in the geological layers. Just repeated many times.

Actually, the creation account puts man before all animals, yet homo sapiens are at the top of geological layers, not the bottom.

Why would I misinterpret the Bible like you and a lot of Christians too and believe the earth is young? The word translated was in Hebrew is Hayah, perhaps you should apply its meaning when you read those verses. Taken in context with "tohu wa bohu" found in only two other places together, both pointing to a once flourishing condition laid desolate and waste.

But the Bible clearly tells us that this once flourishing planet became desolate and waste, and darkness enveloped it from that cataclysm. Comet, meteor? Who knows. I have no doubt the earth is ancient. It was the beginning of His works of long ago. That is became desolate and waste and was restored is no great mystery. Except to science at one time until they learned of extinction events and then the creation of new life in EVERY SINGLE PAST EPOCH where destruction occurred.

I don't really have a scientific argument against matters of faith.

How about exactly what is observed???? Every Felidae still a Felidae, no matter its variation. Every Canidae still a Canidae, no matter its variation. Kind after kind. How about every E. coli still E. coli? Any of that sound familiar?????

Again, once a single E-Coli becomes something sufficiently different from its parent organism, we'll no longer call it E-Coli, so again, a paradoxical argument.

As I am sure you understand life started how?????????? What process occurred? Call your blind faith in a miracle by any name you want and in the end you still need a miracle.

Not really. We are nothing but chemicals. Everything is chemicals, and amino acids are made of four of the most abundant chemicals on Earth. Amino acids are also chemically attracted to one another and form complex, varied strands naturally.

 

[Shemjaza]

Am I understanding this thread right?

Is lifepsyop's thesis: "Since evolutionists are all liars, they would just lie if the evidence was against them, so why should we believe them given have evidence?"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no such thing as "kind". It is something creationists made up.

Just as you made up species, or phylum, or kingdom.

As it happens, humans and apes are in the same bush.

Not any more than a cat and dog is. Both mammals, so what? Cats don't become dogs, dogs don't become cats. Man don't become apes, apes don't become man.

Until of course we decide to play the imaginary game of gaps and have faith that someday they'll be found, because we believe they exist game.

New species are still evolving.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Observed Instances of Speciation

None ever observed, just new "breeds" within that kind. Every E.coli is still E.coli.

"Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum". Two breeds of Drosophila paulistorum is what you really mean. A Tiger can not produce fertile offspring with a house cat. But one can trace a fertile producing link from that cat all the way to the Tiger. As I said, you have a species problem you continue to ignore and make worse as the years go by.

Also, shared ERV's demonstrate shared ancestry between humans and other apes.

Constructing primate phylogenies fr... [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

And? we share them with mice too.

Importance of Mouse Genome

Not surprising at all, being all things are composed of those same electrons and protons, from dust to man.

Every primate after mutation is still a primate.

So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?

Every mammal after mutations is still a mammal.

So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?

Every vertebrate after mutation is still a vertebrate.

So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?

So why do you have a problem with humans sharing ancestry with all vertebrates?

Why do you have a problem with them not, when you can't even get but a variation of the same thing you started with, each and every time????

The experiment started with a single bacterium that did not have the genetic information needed to aerobically digest citrate. Through mutation and selection, the E. coli gained that genetic information.

Direct falsification. From your own supporting papers, "and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences)." It was already there from the very start. Why are you attempting to insinuate that that information was not already there to begin with? Are you that desperate to propagate your Fairie Dust you must tell untruths about sequences already existing?

That is evolution by every definition.

That is re-arranging existing material, which is why kinds never vary outside the kind. Nothing new can EVER be gained, only lost. It is variation by every definition. Those sequences already existed, were simply dormant until turned on.

Tigers and lions do not interbreed in the wild. The populations are genetically isolated which makes them different species, by definition.

What definition????

Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

Which clearly applies in the present case. There is no argument except against your view.

The definition of species has never included the completely inability to produce a hybrid. It has always referred to genetically isolated populations.

No, it refers to the largest group of organisms, isolated or not.

I am not the one using incorrect terms.

Yes you are, it's the largest group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. When that can not be applied, then you go on to similarities, which they again meet.

The same could be said of real life junk. Your definition of "dormant" includes junk DNA.

Who says it's junk? People that don't know what it does???????? Because it's not currently being used, or dormant?

That's all that needs to occur in order to produce all of the biodiversity we see today from a universal common ancestor.

Only IF, that common universal ancestor had every specific gene in every animal that existed today, i.e. a genetically perfect creature from the start. Mutation only re-arranges already existing sequences.

You have already been challenged to discuss that paper with a real geneticist. You refused.

Only in your dreams, he can post here like everyone else, I ain't stopping him. What's stopping him?????

Dormant, as you define it, includes junk DNA and non-functional DNA. "'Dormant" is just a throw away term you use so you don't have to use the commonly used terms, which are junk and non-functional.

Also, there is no back-up copies. That is another thing you are making up.

Dormant is your term, who you trying to fool now, yourself again????


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/drugs-activate-dormant-gene

NIMH · Turning on Dormant Gene May Hold Key for Correcting a Neurodevelopmental Defect

What is a dormant gene

Let's ask a biologist, shall we?

dormant genes (Page 1) - Genes, Genetics and DNA - Ask a Biologist Q&A


EDIT:

Clearly their are back-ups, else repair of damaged genes would be impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

Do to that genetic redundancy, or "back-up" copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_redundancy


But since you have no idea what that "junk" DNA does, you really can not claim anything of the sort you are, when we know they are duplicated everywhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as you made up species, or phylum, or kingdom.

Everything above species is arbitrary, I will gladly agree. However, species is an objective description based on the lack of gene flow between populations.

Until of course we decide to play the imaginary game of gaps and have faith that someday they'll be found, because we believe they exist game.

All of the fossils fit the predictions made by the theory of evolution. All of the fossils are evidence for the theory. No faith needed.

None ever observed, just new "breeds" within that kind. Every E.coli is still E.coli.

They are new species. Denial doesn't make them go away.

And? we share them with mice too.

Are they orthologous?

Not surprising at all, being all things are composed of those same electrons and protons, from dust to man.

Why would being made of the same electrons and protons cause 99+% of our ERV's to appear at the same location in the chimp genome? Explain.

So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?



So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?



So you have crossed species (kind), cat (Felidae) and dog (Canidae)?

Cat and dog are part of the carnivora group. They are still carnivora.

Do you think that is all biology is, a name game? If you can call two populations by the same name, then they didn't evolve? Is that really all you think it is?

Why do you have a problem with them not, when you can't even get but a variation of the same thing you started with, each and every time????

I only have a problem with people who misrepresent science and the facts, as you do.

Direct falsification. From your own supporting papers, "and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences)." It was already there from the very start. Why are you attempting to insinuate that that information was not already there to begin with? Are you that desperate to propagate your Fairie Dust you must tell untruths about sequences already existing?

And once again with your fairy dust insults. Go figure.

If the sequence was already there, then they would have already had that function. They didn't. It wasn't there from the very start. It only arrived once mutations produced that information.

That is re-arranging existing material, which is why kinds never vary outside the kind.

Re-arranging existing genetic sequences is all you need in order to produce all of the biodiversity seen today from a universal common ancestor. You can get from one genome to any genome by re-arranging the existing genetic sequences.

Nothing new can EVER be gained, only lost.

Empty claims backed by zero evidence.

What definition????

The one I have given you multiple times now. Separate species are populations that do not exchange genetic material when given the chance. Tigers and lions are separate species because there is no significant gene flow between their populations.

Yes you are, it's the largest group capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

False. It is the largest group that does interbreed.

Who says it's junk? People that don't know what it does???????? Because it's not currently being used, or dormant?

Your definition of dormant includes functionless junk DNA. People know it is junk DNA because it is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with a lack of function. DNA regions with function are susceptible to deleterious mutations, so we should see conservation of sequence in these regions if they have function. We don't see the conservation of sequence in these regions.

Only IF, that common universal ancestor had every specific gene in every animal that existed today, i.e. a genetically perfect creature from the start. Mutation only re-arranges already existing sequences.

All you need for new genes is the re-arrangement of already existing genes.

Only in your dreams, he can post here like everyone else, I ain't stopping him. What's stopping him?????

What is stopping you? Take up the challenge.

Dormant is your term, who you trying to fool now, yourself again????


https://www.sciencenews.org/article/drugs-activate-dormant-gene

NIMH · Turning on Dormant Gene May Hold Key for Correcting a Neurodevelopmental Defect

What is a dormant gene

Let's ask a biologist, shall we?

dormant genes (Page 1) - Genes, Genetics and DNA - Ask a Biologist Q&A

Going from dormant to non-dormant in those papers did not require mutation. That is not how you are using the term.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It would seem to me that this is a double standard. In an earlier post you said that species are terms made up to confuse lineages. The Phylogeny and Taxonomy of the Tyrannasauridae, part of Mezazoate Vertebrate Life, uses fossil records to show at least three distinct evolutionary branchings from the Allosaurus into the T-Rex, Spinosaurus and Gigantosaurus.

Right, your imaginary argument of the gaps once again comes into play. Where are the billions in between that must have existed? Since evolution is a gradual process and fossilization is rare, the only question you should be asking is the odds of only those that stay the same are ever found? From the first to the last, no intermediaries anywhere, NOT ONE. Just the gap game, the act of faith you always protest.

I didn't quite understand that paragraph.

Isn't it telling that with all the fossils we have exactly the same, there exists no millions of fossils of the intermediaries between? When such must occur by that very theory?

All Allosaurus fossils found are always Allosaurus. All T-Rex found are always T-Rex. All Spinosaurus found are Spinosaurus. All Gigantosaurus found are Gigantosaurus. There is not one single form existing between them, which must have occurred over millions of years, but you can't find even one??????? And you got the nerve to cry foul at faith and dogmatic beliefs?

On the other hand, if one takes different "breeds" of the same kind into account, one can easily account for the similarities and differences in them, just as we observe today in cats and dogs.

Well, you seem smart, so you of all people should understand that finding every transitional fossil is inherently impossible,

Not asking you to find every one, just one. You seem smart so you should know the odds against finding millions of the same kind and not one between is at greater odds, than not finding a continuous graduated chain.

particularly from periods of cataclysm and immense environmental turmoil.

Which can fossilize them across millions of years always the same, but just never fossilizes the intermediaries???? Selective fossilization now as well as selective evolution?

However, there is overwhelming evidence in other palaeontological studies to show evolutionary mutation and natural selection. The biggest fundamental flaw in the argument against the fossil record, thus the argument against evolutionary branching, is that these arguments tend to ignore the actuality that all species, all the time, are transitionary. We simply call like organisms species.

And yet every distinct fossil found is the same from the first to the last. Call em what you will, but they are all the same.

To ask 'when is a T-Rex not a T-Rex' is a paradoxical question, because by our very method whereby extremely similar animals are grouped into species, a T-Rex cannot be anything other than a T-Rex, and if it is, we call it something else.

You called it something else even when the data says it isn't. That's nothing new. It's only paradoxicall because of that species problem you have and the need to get names in the books for discovering "new" ones.

Actually, the creation account puts man before all animals, yet homo sapiens are at the top of geological layers, not the bottom.

"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds...third day...

...Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly... fifth day...

...Then God said, “Let us make mankind"

I say you are wrong, I say it's the exact order you now claim in evolution.

I don't really have a scientific argument against matters of faith.

Sure you do, you just gave them, in your entire spiel about evolution.

Again, once a single E-Coli becomes something sufficiently different from its parent organism, we'll no longer call it E-Coli, so again, a paradoxical argument.

Show me where you have ever called it anything other than E. coli????

20 to 1 you can't find anything.

http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247%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)"

You have nothing.

Not really. We are nothing but chemicals. Everything is chemicals, and amino acids are made of four of the most abundant chemicals on Earth. Amino acids are also chemically attracted to one another and form complex, varied strands naturally.

Except you have never once observed any mutation not simply using what already existed. And as I said, being we are made up of the same electrons and protons from dust to man, it is no wonder we share chemical compounds with that dust too, as well as all other life.

Even you must agree that from "dust" everything that exists, exists.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If we take a movie reel . . . and find only one out of a thousand pictures in it are preserved . . . do we marvel that there are gaps?

This is the answer to your supposed "gap" problem for evolution. Most animals that die are not fossilized, something eats them.

 

[Loudmouth]

If we take a movie reel . . . and find only one out of a thousand pictures in it are preserved . . . do we marvel that there are gaps?

Even with all of the frames, the creationists would use the fractions of a second gap between the frames as evidence that the frames are unrelated to one another.

Even when we have tons of transitionals, like the hominid transitional series, they still refuse to accept it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, your imaginary argument of the gaps once again comes into play. Where are the billions in between that must have existed? Since evolution is a gradual process and fossilization is rare, the only question you should be asking is the odds of only those that stay the same are ever found? From the first to the last, no intermediaries anywhere, NOT ONE. Just the gap game, the act of faith you always protest.

Found the transitionals for you.

Isn't it telling that with all the fossils we have exactly the same, there exists no millions of fossils of the intermediaries between? When such must occur by that very theory?

The theory says nothing about the rate of fossilization.

On the other hand, if one takes different "breeds" of the same kind into account, one can easily account for the similarities and differences in them, just as we observe today in cats and dogs.

"Kind" has no meaning.

Show me where you have ever called it anything other than E. coli????

When have humans been anything other than mammal? Does that mean that you accept humans sharing a common ancestor with other mammals? Is the name game all you have?

Except you have never once observed any mutation not simply using what already existed.

That's all mutations need to do in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a single universal common ancestor. You can get from one genome to any genome by adding mutations to what is already there.

And as I said, being we are made up of the same electrons and protons from dust to man, it is no wonder we share chemical compounds with that dust too, as well as all other life.

Why would this produce a nested hierarchy?

 

[Naturalism]

Everything above species is arbitrary

That is a good and correct point.

Why would being made of the same electrons and protons cause 99+% of our ERV's to appear at the same location in the chimp genome?

I can't wait to hear this one! It's clear Just has not a clue what ERV's are, how & why they are shared and the pattern that is evident in different species.

 

[Naturalism]

Where are the billions in between that must have existed?

Once again, the processes of fossilization and preservation over millions of years is exceedingly rare and by far the exception. That we have found the amount of fossils even thus far is quite remarkable considering all the chain of events that need to occur to allow them to be around.

From the first to the last, no intermediaries anywhere, NOT ONE. Just the gap game, the act of faith you always protest.

You're lying again.

(A few) transitional fossils

Not asking you to find every one, just one.

Archeopteryx, that is one. Is it a bird or a dinosaur. What "kind" does it belong to and how do you objectively know?

Except you have never once observed any mutation not simply using what already existed.

Well duh, mutations and selection are only able to act on what is already present in the gene pool. Thus descent with modification is small per generations changes to existing genes, not whole chromosomes poofed out of nowhere and from no previous ancestor.

 

[Mediate]

Right, your imaginary argument of the gaps once again comes into play. Where are the billions in between that must have existed? Since evolution is a gradual process and fossilization is rare, the only question you should be asking is the odds of only those that stay the same are ever found? From the first to the last, no intermediaries anywhere, NOT ONE. Just the gap game, the act of faith you always protest.

Isn't it telling that with all the fossils we have exactly the same, there exists no millions of fossils of the intermediaries between? When such must occur by that very theory?

All Allosaurus fossils found are always Allosaurus. All T-Rex found are always T-Rex. All Spinosaurus found are Spinosaurus. All Gigantosaurus found are Gigantosaurus. There is not one single form existing between them, which must have occurred over millions of years, but you can't find even one??????? And you got the nerve to cry foul at faith and dogmatic beliefs?

I feel you're using double standards again my friend. On one hand you recognize the impossibility of finding all those billions of fossils, then on the other you deny evolutionary theory because there are gaps - there will always be gaps. It is like me having my picture taken every night before I go to bed for twenty years, showing those photos to a friend, and they say 'I don't believe you are the person in the first picture! It could not be! You must show more frequent pictures', and when I then find a picture for every morning, they still don't believe me and want more pictures. It is an endless request. You must see how similar Allosaurus and T-Rex are, and look at the variation between different T-Rex fossils. They are very, very similar, but different enough to be considered different species - they do not mate together.

On the other hand, if one takes different "breeds" of the same kind into account, one can easily account for the similarities and differences in them, just as we observe today in cats and dogs.

This is just narrowing your requirements for the filling of gaps by using semantics that work in your favour. You still wouldn't have found the transitional fossils you request from evolutionists if you were to use your definitions of 'kind' and 'breed'.

Not asking you to find every one, just one. You seem smart so you should know the odds against finding millions of the same kind and not one between is at greater odds, than not finding a continuous graduated chain.

Which can fossilize them across millions of years always the same, but just never fossilizes the intermediaries???? Selective fossilization now as well as selective evolution?

And yet every distinct fossil found is the same from the first to the last. Call em what you will, but they are all the same.

No, they aren't. Fossils are found of dinosaurs with certain traits, and fossils are found with slightly different dinosaurs with some very similar traits and some other traits that aren't as similar. Using the order of the geological columns where the fossils were found alongside dating methods we can place the time of their existence against one another, and by doing so we see undeniable evidence that different dinosaurs lived in different ages. The Allosaurus lived 150 million years ago. The T-Rex lived 50 million years ago. They are remarkably similar, but different enough to have been considered different species. Between the 100 million year gap we do see those changes happening.

Beyond that, we also have evidence of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds. Genus Juravenator, Genus Pedopenna, Genus Anchiornis, Genus Archaeopteryx, Genus Confuciusornis, Genus Eoalulavis, Genus Icthyornis.

You called it something else even when the data says it isn't. That's nothing new. It's only paradoxicall because of that species problem you have and the need to get names in the books for discovering "new" ones.

Not really. It's paradoxical because if we didn't name clearly different animals as different species we'd not be able to make linguistic distinctions between animals with physical distinctions. It's also paradoxical because asking us to find a T-Rex that's not a T-Rex is an impossible ask, not because evolution is wrong, but because T-Rex by definition must have certain characteristics that make them T-Rex. It's like asking us to find a homo sapiens that isn't a homo sapiens. If it's not a homo sapiens, it's something else.

"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds...third day...

...Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly... fifth day...

...Then God said, “Let us make mankind"

I say you are wrong, I say it's the exact order you now claim in evolution.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Seems like the bible gives two contradicting accounts of creation.

Show me where you have ever called it anything other than E. coli????

20 to 1 you can't find anything.

http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247%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)"

If E-Coli were to evolve sufficiently in a laboratory for it to be drastically different from it's origin organism (E-Coli), then we would name it a new species of bacteria. The long term E-Coli project is one of the many proofs of evolution. E-Coli as we know it, evolved to use citric acid for anaerobic respiration, something humans do in muscle cells. That is proof of mutation in response to environment and of natural selection. Many also grew up to 70% faster than their ancestor strains, evolved larger cells, specialization for living on glucose, and defects causing them to reproduce with increasingly complex, differing mutations more frequently and rapidly.

You have nothing.

Except overwhelming evidence.

Except you have never once observed any mutation not simply using what already existed. And as I said, being we are made up of the same electrons and protons from dust to man, it is no wonder we share chemical compounds with that dust too, as well as all other life.

The very context of evolutionary theory is in established life. It's impossible to observe an evolutionary mutation in a non-existent organism. An organism must exist for it to be able to mutate. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing, but since we're on the topic, scientists have shown that RNA can be syntehsized in numerous ways naturally; even in clay. And RNA is responsible for synthesis of proteins.

Even you must agree that from "dust" everything that exists, exists.

Well, not entirely, but I can see what you're saying in regards to life. We're all inherently derived from inorganic compounds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If we take a movie reel . . . and find only one out of a thousand pictures in it are preserved . . . do we marvel that there are gaps?

This is the answer to your supposed "gap" problem for evolution. Most animals that die are not fossilized, something eats them.

And yet every frame you find is a repeat of the same frame over and over. You should indeed marvel that that is the case!

Instead you imagine that all those missing frames are somehow different, when you only see the same frame from the very oldest one found to the last one found.

So frame 1 shows an A.

Frame 250 shows an A.

Frame 500, 2500, 6000, 50,000, etc, etc, shows an A.

You then imagine some of the others show B, and that you just can't find them.

Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet every frame you find is a repeat of the same frame over and over. You should indeed marvel that that is the case!

Instead you imagine that all those missing frames are somehow different, when you only see the same frame from the very oldest one found to the last one found.

So frame 1 shows an A.

Frame 250 shows an A.

Frame 500, 2500, 6000, 50,000, etc, etc, shows an A.

You then imagine some of the others show B, and that you just can't find them.

Go figure.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Found the transitionals for you.

No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all.

Half of them you need to remove anyways. You of course misclassified them, just like you did with the dinosaurs.

"Kind" has no meaning.

More than "species" does, since you can't seem to get things right, being you listed both fossils for humans and dinosaurs as different species than they actually were. And still list two Felidae as separate species even when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But changing the books to correct that mistake would mean taking away the discovery of the Tiger or Lion as a species, and you would have to remove his/her name from the book.

When have humans been anything other than mammal?

A totally arbitrary classification that has nothing to do with one animal evolving from another, even in your theory. After all, did not mammals evolve from fish? Or are all the links just unknown, just lines on a piece of paper and not named?

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

Does that mean that you accept humans sharing a common ancestor with other mammals? Is the name game all you have?

No, the name game, that's your game. Humans don't share ancestry with any mammals, but humans. Cats only with Felidae, Canidae only with Canidae. You can't find a cat or dog skeleton that isn't a cat or dog. And then the waving of hands, and the imaginary gap game will begin.

That's all mutations need to do in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a single universal common ancestor. You can get from one genome to any genome by adding mutations to what is already there.

Except you have never observed anything but turning on or off what was already there, or re-arranging what was already there. All you have ever observed is variation amongst the same kind. All Canidae are Canidae, nothing new has ever been added, just what already existed. Yet we have many different breeds who, if you only found them in the fossil record and had no living ones to compare too, you would be proclaiming them as intermediate links from one to the next. Instead of merely the different breeds of the same kind you know them to be from direct observation and genetic data.

Why would this produce a nested hierarchy?

It produces the "illusion" of a nested hierarchy, easily mistaken by some as meaning evolution when applied to non-living fossils of which nothing is known. Hence the original OP.


http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/loom/wk 15/dogs.jpg

So why wouldn't using what already existed show a hierarchy, when it is clearly evident in the different breeds of dogs and cats, that are each and every one of them still Felidae and Canidae?