Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Justatruthseeker]

No, you misunderstand the bush analogy.

No one is proposing separate bushes. Where did you get that idea from?

Oh, from your very own evolutionists, which just goes to show how much you don't understand about your own theory.

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life


You should have known this for years now. But you do have a habit of ignoring anything you don't want to hear, including your mutational variation limits that brought down your entire cash cow. All that enthusiastic money just dried up when nothing new could ever be produced.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf


But shhhhh, we aren't supposed to mention experiments that flat out falsify your theory, are we.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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....

What they don't want to mention to you, is that mutations make a species weaker. Just look at dogs and cats we have breed in the last few centuries.

Hip problems, skull problems, liver problems, every single one prone to one genetic defect or another. If they argued for de-evolution, they might have a case, from a genetically perfect creature to creatures that have lost information through mutation and genetic defect.

At least that would match the observations and data.

 

[Split Rock]

What they don't want to mention to you, is that mutations make a species weaker. Just look at dogs and cats we have breed in the last few centuries.

Hip problems, skull problems, liver problems, every single one prone to one genetic defect or another. If they argued for de-evolution, they might have a case, from a genetically perfect creature to creatures that have lost information through mutation and genetic defect.

At least that would match the observations and data.

That is Inbreeding not mutation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, from your very own evolutionists, which just goes to show how much you don't understand about your own theory.

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life


You should have known this for years now. But you do have a habit of ignoring anything you don't want to hear, including your mutational variation limits that brought down your entire cash cow. All that enthusiastic money just dried up when nothing new could ever be produced.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf


But shhhhh, we aren't supposed to mention experiments that flat out falsify your theory, are we.

Sorry, but you did not understand the article. It is still claiming one common ancestor for all animal life. In fact for all Eukaryotes. It is not proposing separate bushes in the sense of different lines of descent.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but you did not understand the article. It is still claiming one common ancestor for all animal life. In fact for all Eukaryotes.

Yes, I know. They are still "preaching" the same thing that technology is beginning to disclose as separate bushes. Zealots are like that. But do you really think that's the end of it? As technology continues to advance, more and more will show the same. Just like a few years ago you could not differentiate those bushes from the rest, until technology advanced enough to start separating out the simplest forms first.

It is not proposing separate bushes in the sense of different lines of descent.

That's exactly what it is saying, which you want to pretend it isn't.

"However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted."

So stop denying it and confront it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know. They are still "preaching" the same thing that technology is beginning to disclose as separate bushes. Zealots are like that. But do you really think that's the end of it? As technology continues to advance, more and more will show the same. Just like a few years ago you could not differentiate those bushes from the rest, until technology advanced enough to start separating out the simplest forms first.

No, technology is not beginning to disclose separate bushes. Where did you get that crazy idea from? It seems to be only wishful thinking on your part. The idea of a bush is now used so that people don't have the mistaken idea of a creature, such as man, being on top. All life is equally far from the evolutionary base.

That's exactly what it is saying, which you want to pretend it isn't.

"However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted."

So stop denying it and confront it!

There is nothing to confront. It is merely pointing out that humans are as far from the base as sponges are. Or even amoebas. You are, perhaps purposefully, misunderstanding an analogy. They are simply trying to disabuse you of the idea of creatures being at the peak of the evolutionary tree.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, technology is not beginning to disclose separate bushes. Where did you get that crazy idea from? It seems to be only wishful thinking on your part. The idea of a bush is now used so that people don't have the mistaken idea of a creature, such as man, being on top. All life is equally far from the evolutionary base.

No, the bush shows your mistaken idea that it is all one tree. Quit being a denier of your own science.

There is nothing to confront. It is merely pointing out that humans are as far from the base as sponges are. Or even amoebas. You are, perhaps purposefully, misunderstanding an analogy. They are simply trying to disabuse you of the idea of creatures being at the peak of the evolutionary tree.

No, it is telling you that you need to confront the fact that some bushes can not be resolved anywhere in the tree of life. And this with technology just capable of beginning to differentiate between them to a high enough degree.

Again, you don't want to confront the truth, because the truth does not allow for your Fairie Dust.

 

[Naturalism]

Yes, I know. They are still "preaching" the same thing that technology is beginning to disclose as separate bushes.

That's just not even true at all.

What has been revealed is that at the base of the domain eukarya it's difficult to determine the amount of shared ancestry with the other domains Archaea and Bacteria.

The classic example of a LUCA for all 3 of these domains may actually be difficult to know as what is apparent after further research and analysis is that earlier protocells would have been engaged in HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer). While this method of exchanges in genetic material do lead to changes it's not considered as a point of descent with modification as they would not be inheritable changes which is what evolution involves.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, the bush shows your mistaken idea that it is all one tree. Quit being a denier of your own science.

No, it is telling you that you need to confront the fact that some bushes can not be resolved anywhere in the tree of life. And this with technology just capable of beginning to differentiate between them to a high enough degree.

Again, you don't want to confront the truth, because the truth does not allow for your Fairie Dust.

I have noticed that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the bush shows your mistaken idea that it is all one tree. Quit being a denier of your own science.





No, it is telling you that you need to confront the fact that some bushes can not be resolved anywhere in the tree of life. And this with technology just capable of beginning to differentiate between them to a high enough degree.

Again, you don't want to confront the truth, because the truth does not allow for your Fairie Dust.

Why do creationists keep grasping at straws?

justa, when you have a 12th grader's ability to understand simple science perhaps people might pay attention to you then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have noticed that as well.

And you are no better than justa.

Would you like to take a crack at the physics problem that justa had an epic fail on?

 

[EternalDragon]

And you are no better than justa.

Would you like to take a crack at the physics problem that justa had an epic fail on?

I thought we were talking about the bush of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought we were talking about the bush of life.

Tree, bush whatever. It is a bit disgusting when justa misinterprets clear work and tries to make an argument against evolution with it.

I will try to get this across one more time, the idea of a tree can be misleading since there tends to be a clear top to many trees. Or one life over others. The idea of a bush is a bit better since the idea is more of an equal distance from the source. There is only one "bush of life". justa is trying to claim there are several, yet he cannot find one source that shows him several.

 

[JacksBratt]

Is see people on these forums arguing facts, fiction, fossil, no fossil, science, theory, proof, no proof, show your work, show your calculations, religion, non religion.

On and On it goes. The same old accusations, assumptions, name calling etc etc etc.

The way I see it is two camps. One with no creator or God. One with a creator or God.

Both end up here, with a universe that contains earth and abundant varying forms of life.

The thing is, only one camp has an explanation for that life. One camp states "well we are not sure where the "life" component came from but we'll get back to that later".

That is pretty much like saying "I'm going to buy a huge farm, it's going to have horses and barns and a huge pond with a waterfall. Gate houses, guest houses, a mansion and huge kitchen and wine cellar. The lane will be lined with oak trees and have white gravel. There will be a golf course out back and a cricket pitch too. It will be situated on a lake with mountains in the distance...... and on and on.

When asked where your going to get the money.......We Don't know... We'll worry about that later....

Same with evolution... where did the one and only thing necessary for all this...which is "LIFE"... come from?????? WE DON'T KNOW..we'll worry about that later.

Life, you cannot create it. Life comes only from life. With all the technology, intelligence, genius, progress, and knowledge, we cannot produce it, make it, fabricate it, form it or create it.. BUT we can stop it.

 

[Split Rock]

Is see people on these forums arguing facts, fiction, fossil, no fossil, science, theory, proof, no proof, show your work, show your calculations, religion, non religion.

On and On it goes. The same old accusations, assumptions, name calling etc etc etc.

The way I see it is two camps. One with no creator or God. One with a creator or God.

Both end up here, with a universe that contains earth and abundant varying forms of life.

The thing is, only one camp has an explanation for that life. One camp states "well we are not sure where the "life" component came from but we'll get back to that later".

That is pretty much like saying "I'm going to buy a huge farm, it's going to have horses and barns and a huge pond with a waterfall. Gate houses, guest houses, a mansion and huge kitchen and wine cellar. The lane will be lined with oak trees and have white gravel. There will be a golf course out back and a cricket pitch too. It will be situated on a lake with mountains in the distance...... and on and on.

When asked where your going to get the money.......We Don't know... We'll worry about that later....

Same with evolution... where did the one and only thing necessary for all this...which is "LIFE"... come from?????? WE DON'T KNOW..we'll worry about that later.

Life, you cannot create it. Life comes only from life. With all the technology, intelligence, genius, progress, and knowledge, we cannot produce it, make it, fabricate it, form it or create it.. BUT we can stop it.

No, its more like, "I don't know where the clay to make the bricks comes from, but I'll make the bricks with it anyway." Evolution does not require understanding where life comes from. Also, there are plenty of believers in a creator who accept evolution. Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is see people on these forums arguing facts, fiction, fossil, no fossil, science, theory, proof, no proof, show your work, show your calculations, religion, non religion.

On and On it goes. The same old accusations, assumptions, name calling etc etc etc.

The way I see it is two camps. One with no creator or God. One with a creator or God.

Both end up here, with a universe that contains earth and abundant varying forms of life.

The thing is, only one camp has an explanation for that life. One camp states "well we are not sure where the "life" component came from but we'll get back to that later".

That is pretty much like saying "I'm going to buy a huge farm, it's going to have horses and barns and a huge pond with a waterfall. Gate houses, guest houses, a mansion and huge kitchen and wine cellar. The lane will be lined with oak trees and have white gravel. There will be a golf course out back and a cricket pitch too. It will be situated on a lake with mountains in the distance...... and on and on.

When asked where your going to get the money.......We Don't know... We'll worry about that later....

Same with evolution... where did the one and only thing necessary for all this...which is "LIFE"... come from?????? WE DON'T KNOW..we'll worry about that later.

Life, you cannot create it. Life comes only from life. With all the technology, intelligence, genius, progress, and knowledge, we cannot produce it, make it, fabricate it, form it or create it.. BUT we can stop it.

You do realize that it is the evolution side that has an explanation for life.

Magic is not an explanation, in case you didn't know.

And you I see you suffer from that common fallacy that most creationists seem to believe in. The fact that we do not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything. The fact that we are not sure how the first life appeared does not mean that we do not know that life evolved.


Here is a simple analogy. You are driving down the road and take an illegal right on red at an intersection with a red light camera. It is not in my state so they can take a video of the driver's face. Here is a simple question:

Do they need a video of your birth to convict you of not stopping properly for your right turn on red?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is see people on these forums arguing facts, fiction, fossil, no fossil, science, theory, proof, no proof, show your work, show your calculations, religion, non religion.

On and On it goes. The same old accusations, assumptions, name calling etc etc etc.

The way I see it is two camps. One with no creator or God. One with a creator or God.

Both end up here, with a universe that contains earth and abundant varying forms of life.

The thing is, only one camp has an explanation for that life. One camp states "well we are not sure where the "life" component came from but we'll get back to that later".

That is pretty much like saying "I'm going to buy a huge farm, it's going to have horses and barns and a huge pond with a waterfall. Gate houses, guest houses, a mansion and huge kitchen and wine cellar. The lane will be lined with oak trees and have white gravel. There will be a golf course out back and a cricket pitch too. It will be situated on a lake with mountains in the distance...... and on and on.

When asked where your going to get the money.......We Don't know... We'll worry about that later....

Same with evolution... where did the one and only thing necessary for all this...which is "LIFE"... come from?????? WE DON'T KNOW..we'll worry about that later.

Life, you cannot create it. Life comes only from life. With all the technology, intelligence, genius, progress, and knowledge, we cannot produce it, make it, fabricate it, form it or create it.. BUT we can stop it.

It is not accurate to say either side knows how life was created. Merely to say God created life is not to understand or know how God created life.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution does not require understanding where life comes from. Also, there are plenty of believers in a creator who accept evolution. Why is that?

So, you don't need to know where life comes from? Really? This whole theory of evolution depends on life. But, you don't know where it came from?

That doesn't disturb you?

 

[JacksBratt]

You do realize that it is the evolution side that has an explanation for life.

Magic is not an explanation, in case you didn't know.

And you I see you suffer from that common fallacy that most creationists seem to believe in. The fact that we do not know everything does not mean that we do not know anything. The fact that we are not sure how the first life appeared does not mean that we do not know that life evolved.


Here is a simple analogy. You are driving down the road and take an illegal right on red at an intersection with a red light camera. It is not in my state so they can take a video of the driver's face. Here is a simple question:

Do they need a video of your birth to convict you of not stopping properly for your right turn on red?

What???????

 

[JacksBratt]

It is not accurate to say either side knows how life was created. Merely to say God created life is not to understand or know how God created life.

No offense but are you saying that you don't know how life was created?