Goose Bumps are useless!

[AV1611VET]

A broken TV can still serve a function by acting as a door stop.

Why does it have to be broken to serve as a door stop?

 

[Smidlee]

Why does it have to be broken to serve as a door stop?

He doesn't understand we as intelligent being can take a broken mouse trap and use it as a paperclip yet it's not common even for a mouse to do this. Yet somehow blind and without purpose evolution can somehow do this.
In order for a broken TV be used as a door stop it has to be put in place on purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

He doesn't understand we as intelligent being can take a broken mouse trap and use it as a paperclip yet it's not common even for a mouse to do this. Yet somehow blind and without purpose evolution can somehow do this.
In order for a broken TV be used as a door step it has to be put in place on purpose.

Yup.

 

[Smidlee]

Even though this is a joke it make about as much sense as other evolution explanations.
BAHFest 2013 - Tomer Ullman: The Crying Game - YouTube

 

[Loudmouth]

He doesn't understand we as intelligent being can take a broken mouse trap and use it as a paperclip yet it's not common even for a mouse to do this.

Again, it is the pattern of shared features in vestigial organs that evidences evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

When you repurpose an item, do you make sure that it stays in a nested hierarchy? When car designers make a new car, do they make sure that it fits into an already established nested hierarchy?

Why don't we find mammals with vestigial feathers? Why don't we find birds with vestigial teats? Why do we see a nested hierarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

But an unbroken TV does not need a door.

It's only after the TV breaks, that a door is needed.

You can always just get rid of the broken TV and get a door stop that was designed for the purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to evolution then everything are vestigial features which makes vestigial meaningless.

Not every organ has primary adaptations that are not being used.

You make the assumption that a whale made serious change from a land animal yet somehow kept all the mammal features we could clearly tell it's a mammal. There is no reason after millions of years of evolution for their to be a nested hierarchy.

Then please tell me how the whale can get adaptations from modern birds using the mechanisms of evolution.

The fact of the matter is that whales DO have adaptations that other land mammals have. Whales DO fit into the nested hierarchy. You can't simply wish the evidence away.

There is no explanation why evolution conserved some features and not others.

The conserved features increased fitness. That is the explanation.

 

[EternalDragon]

Again, it is the pattern of shared features in vestigial organs that evidences evolution. That pattern is a nested hierarchy.

When you repurpose an item, do you make sure that it stays in a nested hierarchy? When car designers make a new car, do they make sure that it fits into an already established nested hierarchy?

Why don't we find mammals with vestigial feathers? Why don't we find birds with vestigial teats? Why do we see a nested hierarchy?

Cars are not designed to live on earth. What you are looking at is special creation with thousands of years of natural selection and mutations from that original creation. (Have you never entertained the idea we may be looking at degeneration rather than evolution?)

You are also deciding how a vastly more intelligent being would choose to create life for earth.

Did you forget that sharks don't fit neatly into the nested hierarchy?

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

The "Ghost of Teleology": Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Evolution News & Views

Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views

 

[PsychoSarah]

Cars are not designed to live on earth. What you are looking at is special creation with thousands of years of natural selection and mutations from that original creation. (Have you never entertained the idea we may be looking at degeneration rather than evolution?)

You are also deciding how a vastly more intelligent being would choose to create life for earth.

Did you forget that sharks don't fit neatly into the nested hierarchy?

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

The "Ghost of Teleology": Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Evolution News & Views

Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views

Your singular source is an apologetics site.

 

[EternalDragon]

Your singular source is an apologetics site.

Are you trying to ignore the facts?

 

[lasthero]

Are you trying to ignore the facts?

Don't throw stones. You'll break your glass house.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you trying to ignore the facts?

You would have to present them first.

 

[Loudmouth]

Cars are not designed to live on earth.

Why does living on Earth require a nested hierarchy?

What you are looking at is special creation with thousands of years of natural selection and mutations from that original creation. (Have you never entertained the idea we may be looking at degeneration rather than evolution?)

Are you saying that all vertebrates, from hagfish to humans, evolved from that original creation? You are aware that all vertebrates, including humans, fall into a nested hierarchy, aren't you?

You are also deciding how a vastly more intelligent being would choose to create life for earth.

I keep asking you why a vastly more intelligent being would be limited to a nested hierarchy. I am not the one telling God how he had to create. That would be you.

Did you forget that sharks don't fit neatly into the nested hierarchy?

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

The "Ghost of Teleology": Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Evolution News & Views

Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Evolution News & Views

Did you forget that none of those are peer reviewed articles, and are complete hatchet jobs by lying creationists.

 

[Zosimus]

Why does living on Earth require a nested hierarchy?



Are you saying that all vertebrates, from hagfish to humans, evolved from that original creation? You are aware that all vertebrates, including humans, fall into a nested hierarchy, aren't you?



I keep asking you why a vastly more intelligent being would be limited to a nested hierarchy. I am not the one telling God how he had to create. That would be you.



Did you forget that none of those are peer reviewed articles, and are complete hatchet jobs by lying creationists.

You seem to have an inability to follow links. I easily found the study the article was referring to at BMC Genomics | Full text | Characterization of the heart transcriptome of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and it's not a Creationist website.

"BioMed Central is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher of 272 peer-reviewed open access journals. The portfolio of journals spans all areas of biology, biomedicine and medicine and includes broad interest titles, such as BMC Biology and BMC Medicine alongside specialist journals, such as Retrovirology and BMC Genomics. All original research articles published by BioMed Central are made freely accessible online immediately upon publication."

I also found the data available at http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/12/shark-human-proteins-are-surprisingly-similar

 

[PsychoSarah]

You seem to have an inability to follow links. I easily found the study the article was referring to at BMC Genomics | Full text | Characterization of the heart transcriptome of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and it's not a Creationist website.

"BioMed Central is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher of 272 peer-reviewed open access journals. The portfolio of journals spans all areas of biology, biomedicine and medicine and includes broad interest titles, such as BMC Biology and BMC Medicine alongside specialist journals, such as Retrovirology and BMC Genomics. All original research articles published by BioMed Central are made freely accessible online immediately upon publication."

I also found the data available at Shark, human proteins are surprisingly similar | Cornell Chronicle

I applaud your sources, and agree that they are sufficiently peer reviewed.

 

[EternalDragon]

I applaud your sources, and agree that they are sufficiently peer reviewed.

My sources are as well. The only difference is mine are objective while the one listed above leaves out the parts that conflict with evolution theory so as to get through peer review, keep getting funded and not lose tenure. So which is the real lying site? (By the way the author of that article posted by Zosimus is a communication specialist at a college of veterinary medicine.)

Think outside the box.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to have an inability to follow links. I easily found the study the article was referring to at BMC Genomics | Full text | Characterization of the heart transcriptome of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and it's not a Creationist website.

This is a creationist webpage, and a bad one at that:

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

If he wants to discuss the actual peer review paper, then he should discuss it. He should find the evidence in the peer reviewed paper, and show how it supports his argument. He won't do that.

Instead, we get links to creationist websites that tell flat out lies, and ED refuses to acknowledge them.

 

[Loudmouth]

My sources are as well.

This article is not peer reviewed.

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

The only difference is mine are objective while the one listed above leaves out the parts that conflict with evolution theory so as to get through peer review, keep getting funded and not lose tenure. So which is the real lying site?

Hold on. Let me get this straight.

You are telling me that the author of this article:

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

. . . went through the research notebooks of the authors of this article:

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

. . . and published the data that the scientists refused to publish in the original peer reviewed article?

Is that what you are saying?

What data did Casey Luskin collect on the white shark transcriptome? Did Casey Luskin do any of the sequencing or comparative genomics? Of the data that was reported at Evolution News and Views, how much of that science was done by Casey Luskin? Any of it?

(By the way the author of that article posted by Zosimus is a communication specialist at a college of veterinary medicine.)

Think outside the box.

You are ignoring the scientists.

 

[Zosimus]

My sources are as well. The only difference is mine are objective while the one listed above leaves out the parts that conflict with evolution theory so as to get through peer review, keep getting funded and not lose tenure. So which is the real lying site? (By the way the author of that article posted by Zosimus is a communication specialist at a college of veterinary medicine.)

Think outside the box.

Michael J. Stanhope Lab: Biography

"I am an evolutionary biologist with approximately 30 years of experience studying a wide range of organisms and topics in evolutionary biology. During my Ph.D. research at Simon Fraser University I became interested in applying molecular biology techniques to the evolutionary ecology questions I was studying in an estuarine gammarid amphipod, and in the process became one of a few people at the time forging a new discipline, today regarded as Molecular Ecology.

"My post-doctoral work was conducted with Professor Morris Goodman at Wayne State University where I studied various aspects of molecular evolution and phylogenetics of mammals. It was during this period that I developed a pronounced interest in higher-level mammalian systematics and was one of the first to pioneer the use of nuclear genes for molecular systematic study of the interordinal relationships of eutherian mammals.

"My first faculty appointment was at Queen’s University of Belfast, where I remained for 6 years, leaving in 1999 as Reader of Molecular Systematics. At Queen’s my lab studied molecular evolution and phylogenetics of organisms ranging from algae to sharks to mammals, but with the primary focus being the evolutionary history of the orders of eutherian mammals. We made a number of important discoveries in this line of research including the discovery of a new order of eutherian mammal (Afrosoricida) as well as a superordinal clade of African mammals (Afrotheria).

"In 1999 I took a position as a Research Scientist in the bioinformatics department of the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham (SKB). In 2000 Glaxo Welcome merged with SKB to form Glaxo SmithKline (GSK) and I was appointed as head of Evolutionary Biology in the GSK bioinformatics department. Our role was to provide an evolutionary biology perspective to problems of interest and concern to GSK, and since my group was well integrated with the company’s microbiologists, our activities fell predominately within the realm of viral and bacterial molecular evolution. It was this work at GSK that created my fascination (and respect) with bacterial molecular evolution.

"I joined Cornell University in 2005, as Professor of Evolutionary Genomics in the department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, in the Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine. My lab here at Cornell studies comparative and population genomics of animal and human pathogenic bacteria."

 

[EternalDragon]

This is a creationist webpage, and a bad one at that:

Shark Proteins Contradict the Standard Phylogeny of Vertebrates - Evolution News & Views

If he wants to discuss the actual peer review paper, then he should discuss it. He should find the evidence in the peer reviewed paper, and show how it supports his argument. He won't do that.

Instead, we get links to creationist websites that tell flat out lies, and ED refuses to acknowledge them.

Researching evidence to get to the truth is science. Calling new information lies (because it speaks against Darwinian evolutionary guesses) is just putting fingers in your ears.

We don't come from fish and your nested hierarchy is more like trying to jam a round peg into a square hole.

<i>New York Times</i>: &quot;We are Sarcopterygian Fish,&quot; If You Ignore Contrary Data - Evolution News & Views