Examples

[whois]

Why would I need one?

i'm sorry, i thought you had an actual reason for ridiculing mine.

How about you just don't use the word.

why?
for your convenience?

What's the point of using a word that you don't even know the definition to?

i gave you a definition, then clarified it in a later post.
i also specifically stated that due to the complexities of biology that the definition would probably have exceptions.
you ridiculed the definition, and i asked you for a better one.
see the first part of this quote for your response to that request.

frankly, the only real classification of life forms is a genetic one, and its being discovered that this genetic classification does not align with the species tree of life.

 

[crjmurray]

Oooops, sorry about that. Tell you what, how about I show you the skeleton minus the skull and tell me what you think then?
View attachment 162653

That's a monkey skull on a human skeleton.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Fundamentally, that the diversity of life and genetics are both well-explained by mechanisms such as descent with modification.

I think that's the same as what creation scientists believe. The only difference is they don't believe in the major changes such as eventually turning reptiles into birds.

 

[whois]

I think that's the same as what creation scientists believe. The only difference is they don't believe in the major changes such as eventually turning reptiles into birds.

the game genetics plays is most likely NOT a darwinian one.
darwinian, as in a slow adaptive change.

 

[lasthero]

why?
for your convenience?

For everyone's. It's a bit hard to have debate with a word that has no definition, don't you agree? Words should mean things. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

i gave you a definition, then clarified it in a later post.

You gave a definition, then listed a bunch of things as examples, few of which actually FIT that definiton. You seem confused.

i also specifically stated that due to the complexities of biology that the definition would probably have exceptions.

You listed a bunch of exceptions.

you ridiculed the definition, and i asked you for a better one.
see the first part of this quote for your response to that request.

And I ask again - why should I have to come up with a definition for a word I'm not using?

frankly, the only real classification of life forms is a genetic one, and its being discovered that this genetic classification does not align with the species tree of life.

That's nice.

 

[Papias]

I'll reply to your other points later as I don't have time now, ....

I see you haven't done so (other than the lev. point), so I'll keep them organized for you.

1.

You are both missing the point that a few crackpots are irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, and in any large group of human beings, there will be some who are simply irrational - as we've seen, there are tens of thousands of geologists, and millions of scientists. So, if I were to claim well debunked things - like, say, that AIDS isn't caused by HIV, or that vaccines cause Autism, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that the moon landing was a hoax, - I could find a few experts in the relevant fields to support that.

That's why finding a few relevant experts who support any idea doesn't help you. You need to show that a significant percentage do, otherwise you have no evidence from the experts. Project Steve shows that practically all biologists support evolution, and the GSA statement shows the same for geologists/paleontologists.

2. The fact that most of the support for evolution comes from Christians.

... having had a look at the link you posted, I would say that all it shows is that generally, creation(ism) is a more popular concept than evolution(ism), so far from being a crackpot idea, it has many adherents - obviously by people who can spot a myth when they see one.

This is at least your second falsehood so far. In addition to your first falsehood that evolution supporters are "atheists" (when in reality, only a minority are), your statement here that "creationism is a more popular concept than evolution" is also shown to be false. Some simple math from these data:
Creationists = 42%
Evolution supporters = 50% (that's 31% who see evolution guided by God, plus 19% who see evolution without God).

Will you admit that both of your statements are falsehoods, and pledge to stop repeating falsehoods?

Here's the data again. http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

3. The fact that the experts agree that the fossil record clearly shows that evolution is real.

GSA.

Yes, as has been pointed out to you, fossils are made out of rock. The GSA is the proper expert group to ask what the fossil record in the rocks says.


4. Leviticus lists what a "kind" is.

You also ignored my question - do you deny the scripture in Leviticus that says that kind is at the species level or lower?

You replied with a different verse from leviticus. No, I meant:

‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.' Lev 19:19​

So different varieties of cattle are different kind, making "kind" = subspecies or at highest, species (since different kinds here can breed). As we've seen from the ring species example, and from the fact that many cases of new species forming from previous species have been observed, we can see that there is no barrier to one kind turning into another. This is yet another sign of many that the Genesis account is not supposed to be literal history.

5. You used the argument from incredulity fallacy against the fact that all life on earth is on the same family tree, a family tree that is available for you to learn.

Here is one place you can learn about your family.
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

the definition i gave in post 89 is the best i can come up with.
another would be, whatever your parents are, then so are you.

Chihuahuas give birth to Chihuahuas, so I guess Chihuahua is a kind. Since we can show that wolves and Chihuahuas share a common ancestor, that is a perfect example of a new kind evolving.

 

[dysert]

Chihuahuas give birth to Chihuahuas, so I guess Chihuahua is a kind. Since we can show that wolves and Chihuahuas share a common ancestor, that is a perfect example of a new kind evolving.

Please show that wolves and Chihuahuas share a common ancestor. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please show that wolves and Chihuahuas share a common ancestor. Thanks.

You don't accept that dogs are derived from wolves? Really?

 

[dysert]

You don't accept that dogs are derived from wolves? Really?

Really, I don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really, I don't.

"Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time 27,000-40,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

 

[dysert]

"Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time 27,000-40,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

Thanks for that. I *really* don't want to get into an argument, so please don't think I'm being argumentative, but one thing (well, more than one, but for now...) has bugged me about these things. I thought science was all about observing, repeating, predicting, etc. Obviously, we have no records of people having observed this divergence, we don't see it repeating, and it would be pointless to predict such a divergence in the future since none of us would be here to see it. How, then, is this "scientific"? Just asking.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for that. I *really* don't want to get into an argument, so please don't think I'm being argumentative, but one thing (well, more than one, but for now...) has bugged me about these things. I thought science was all about observing, repeating, predicting, etc. Obviously, we have no records of people having observed this divergence, we don't see it repeating, and it would be pointless to predict such a divergence in the future since none of us would be here to see it. How, then, is this "scientific"? Just asking.

The gene sequences are entirely repeatable and observable which makes it scientific. You seem to be making a common mistake in thinking that it is the hypothesis that needs to be repeatable. That isn't correct. It is the observations that need to be repeatable. In this case, it is the genome sequences that are the observations and they are easily repeatable.

Also, we have written records of new dog breeds being developed in just the last few centuries.

 

[dysert]

The gene sequences are entirely repeatable and observable which makes it scientific. You seem to be making a common mistake in thinking that it is the hypothesis that needs to be repeatable. That isn't correct. It is the observations that need to be repeatable. In this case, it is the genome sequences that are the observations and they are easily repeatable.

Also, we have written records of new dog breeds being developed in just the last few centuries.

Thank you.

 

[whois]

"Whole genome sequencing indicates that the dog, the gray wolf and the extinct Taymyr wolf diverged at around the same time 27,000-40,000 years ago."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

the problem with this "proof" is that it does not model how DNA works in reality.

i pointed this out in another thread, but another problem i see as far as "proofs" go, is that we have no standards.
for example, there is no "standard" DNA sequence for humans.

as soon as we can establish some standards, we can easily write some genetic algorithms that models this stuff.
maybe these standards won't single molecules but a population of them.
this would complicate the algorithm somewhat, but it should still be workable.
this algorithm wouldn't even need to model the entire tree of life, just one line, say from bacteria to human.
once this algorithm is perfected, it should work for all life forms.

 

[The Cadet]

the problem with this "proof" is that it does not model how DNA works in reality.

Actually, given the extreme paucity of HGT in eukaryotes, and given that we have a working understanding of the methods of mutation in VGT, the model does, in fact, model how DNA works in reality for eukaryotes.

 

[whois]

Actually, given the extreme paucity of HGT in eukaryotes, and given that we have a working understanding of the methods of mutation in VGT, the model does, in fact, model how DNA works in reality for eukaryotes.

not if it follows the sanger method that loudmouth linked to.

 

[Loudmouth]

the problem with this "proof" is that it does not model how DNA works in reality.

How so?

i pointed this out in another thread, but another problem i see as far as "proofs" go, is that we have no standards.
for example, there is no "standard" DNA sequence for humans.

Why should there be a standard DNA sequence for humans since no two humans (other than identical twins) have the same genome? Every human is born with 35 to 50 mutations that make them different from even their parents.

as soon as we can establish some standards, we can easily write some genetic algorithms that models this stuff.

We already have those standards. They are the standard equations used in population genetics which allows us to model how genetic divergence will increase over time between genetically isolated populations. Those are the very equations they used to model the genetic divergence between dogs and wolves.

 

[whois]

How so?

because the sanger method you link to states there is a 1% difference between that method and reality.
unless this accounted for, this makes the sanger method totally unreliable for long term simulations.

Why should there be a standard DNA sequence for humans since no two humans (other than identical twins) have the same genome? Every human is born with 35 to 50 mutations that make them different from even their parents.

you know, why do you do this?
i specifically stated in my post that these standards might be a group of molecules instead of just one, a population of them.

We already have those standards. They are the standard equations used in population genetics which allows us to model how genetic divergence will increase over time between genetically isolated populations. Those are the very equations they used to model the genetic divergence between dogs and wolves.

okay, where are they?
where is the computer model that is based on them?

 

[Loudmouth]

because the sanger method you link to states there is a 1% difference between that method and reality.

What do you mean by this? Sanger end sequencing is a method for sequencing DNA, and nothing more. What do you think it is trying to model?

unless this accounted for, this makes the sanger method totally unreliable for long term simulations.

What do you think the Sanger end sequencing is trying to model?

you know, why do you do this?

Do what?

i specifically stated in my post that these standards might be a group of molecules instead of just one, a population of them.

The current standard is being compiled by the HapMap project:
http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

You can input a gene and look at the alleles they have found for that gene, the percentage of their test populations that have that allele, and so forth. I don't know if this will work, but here is a copied url for a search I did for the human mmp13 gene. Included on the page are the SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and the frequency of those SNPs in the populations they looked at.

http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-perl/gbrowse/hapmap28_B36/#search

okay, where are they?
where is the computer model that is based on them?

This seems to be a simple list of some of the more important equations used in population genetics:

http://www.radford.edu/~rsheehy/Gen_flash/ABLE_Workshop/Popgen_Equations.pdf

Here is another reference:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/genetic_drift.html

If you have estimates for the mutation rate and effective population sizes you can make predict how much divergence there should be between two species over a certain amount of time.