• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How to choose between creation and evolution.

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What I find interesting is that many who subscribe to the theory of evolution claim that, 'it isn't just another scientific theory;' until, you know, it becomes convenient for it ti be one.
I think you are confusing that with the standard anti-science assertion such as "its just a theory".
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'll get right on that, as soon as you prove that which you claim is indeed a fact.
fact
noun
\ ˈfakt \
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existencespace exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrenceprove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective realityThese are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITYa question of fact hinges on evidence
4: a thing done: such as
a: CRIMEaccessory after the fact
barchaic : ACTION
cobsolete : FEAT




I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."​

YOUR TURN
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The evidence of creation is all around us,

I love it when creationists write things like this.

Give a specific example?
but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.
So, no example, no explanation, no mechanism of creation, etc., just silly platitudes and slogans.

Got it.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The evidence of creation is all around us, but it takes the logic/good sense our creator gave us to have enough sense to recognize things never create themselves from nothing, something that is essentially the only alternative.
So the only alternative to biblical creationism is that things created themselves from nothing. And then you wonder why we don't take you seriously.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Ttalkkugjil

Social Pastor
Mar 6, 2019
1,680
908
Suwon
✟42,072.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Er, yes. That is what your people do on a regular basis. Even senile, astrologer-using Ronzo Reagan said it.

*chuckle* Alrighty friend. Have a good evening. Don't let the bed bugs bite.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I’m a little tired of you repeating that lie about macroevolution not happening. Speciation is macroevolution. Example 1 lions and tigers - genus Panthera they’ve separated so much that while they can mate and produce healthy hybrid offspring, the offspring are infertile. They’ve fully speciated . Example 2 Timema cristinae,which is an insect, is in the process of speciating. Showing mate preference between the 2 types which is how speciation starts . The insect and the cats are examples of slow speciation due to natural selection. Example 3 Polyploid speciation is a fast type of speciation. The offspring are another species and cannot mate with the parent species due to different chromosome numbers. This is very very common in plants . These are just 3 examples of macroevolution. The creationist version of kinds is actually macroevolution .!
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The creationist version of kinds is actually macroevolution .!
How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?

In addition, how is it that both avian and non-avian dinosaurs were aboard at the same time?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
How is it both man and dinosaurs were aboard the Ark?

Because it's just a story.

(And for the record, the tale of Noah's Ark doesn't explicitly mention any dinosaurs. Any imagining of that is an addition to the story.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Because it's just a story.
Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?

No, because Noah's Ark being a fictional tale has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Would you agree that you have to relegate this account (of Noah) to fiction, else the theory of evolution as it is known today would have to be revised?
I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, because Noah's Ark being a fictional tale has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?

Really?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I would say that we must relegate the Noah's flood tale to fiction because it is fiction.
And if it wasn't, would the theory of evolution as it exists today need some editing?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You don't see a [literary] correlation between the coexistence of man and dinosaurs being detrimental to the theory of evolution as evolution is taught today?

I worry about it as much as I worry about the literary effects of warp drives in Star Trek being detrimental to modern physics as it is taught today.

In other words, not at all.

(Besides, the Bible doesn't explicitly mention dinosaurs. Or are you thinking of the Flintstones? )
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,610
52,511
Guam
✟5,128,219.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I worry about it as much as I worry about the literary effects of warp drives in Star Trek being detrimental to modern physics as it is taught today.

In other words, not at all.
I don't want you to worry about it.

I want to know if you see it.

Although I'll admit: science is myopic.

So maybe it can't be seen.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I don't want you to worry about it.

I want to know if you see it.

See what? Perhaps if you try making your point clearly I'll understand what you are trying to get at.

Although I'll admit: science is myopic.


 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

This is very wrong, its also not about what a scientific theory entails so its also irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0