Is it a hoax?

[Jimmy D]

I would suggest you read my OP just as it is written, not how you want it to be written. Then read this post of yours and ask yourself who is making accusations?

Two things.

1. I agreed to a discussion in another thread (In which you made the same unfounded accusation and ran away when challenged might I add ). I'm under no obligation to answer everything you type on the forum.

2. Having said that, I actually gave answer to your OP on page one which you again ignored.

As I said in the other thread, I have attempted to be civil with you but my patience is wearing thin. You have accused me of dishonesty, you have ignored questions which you promised to answer, and generally demonstrated an ignorance of the topics you are attempting rather poorly to discuss.

I don't feel that this has been a complete waste of time though, if nothing else readers, who might be on the fence on these issues, can at least see the dishonest, hypocritical and ignorant manner in which creationists behave when challenged.

You make a fine representative for the creationist cause.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nope, someone sold you a bill of goods. Once again what school was this? It is beginning to sound like a mail order degree to me. There are quite a few denominations that accept the theory of evolution:
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

At a guess, it was a conservative theological seminary.

 

[xianghua]

For example, someone walked here:

View attachment 206489

someone have made this:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

 

[xianghua]

Spent some time on Nature and PubMed. Fun 30 minutes.

The conclusion of biologists is that the hypothesis of universal common ancestry isn't even in dispute, although there is dispute over whether such a thing as a single organism Universal Common Ancestor actually existed or not. Bit of a back and forth over that, with some papers claiming its basically unknowable because of the gradualistic and artificial nature of the life/non-life distinction, and others claiming to have narrowed down some of LUCA's characteristics and found more plausible evidence supporting

Some indicative samples:

Kooinin and Wolf 2010:

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.
​

Martins and Posada 2014:

A phylogenetic model selection test to quantify the evidence for the Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) of life forms was proposed recently (Theobald 2010), based on the comparison of the statistical support, using likelihoods, the Akaike Information Criterion or Bayes Factors, for two different phylogenetic models representing the UCA and the Independent Origins (IO) hypotheses (Sober and Steel 2002). In this test, the former is represented by a single phylogeny connecting all sequences, while the latter is depicted by several, independent phylogenetic trees (Figure 1). Importantly, in the original UCA test the same alignment was used to represent both hypotheses. When applied to a particular data set of 23 universally conserved proteins, the test strongly favored a UCA scenario.
​

Martins and Posada 2016:

The evidence for universal common ancestry (UCA) is vast and persuasive.​

Koskela and Annila 2012:

Genomic sequences across diverse species seem to align towards a common ancestry, eventually implying that eons ago some universal antecedent organism would have lived on the face of Earth. However, when evolution is understood not only as a biological process but as a general thermodynamic process, it becomes apparent that the quest for the last universal common ancestor is unattainable. Ambiguities in alignments are unavoidable because the driving forces and paths of evolution cannot be separated from each other. Thus tracking down life’s origin is by its nature a non-computable task. The thermodynamic tenet clarifies that evolution is a path-dependent process of least-time consumption of free energy. The natural process is without a demarcation line between animate and inanimate.
​

Weiss et al 2016:

The concept of a last universal common ancestor of all cells (LUCA, or the progenote) is central to the study of early evolution and life's origin, yet information about how and where LUCA lived is lacking. We investigated all clusters and phylogenetic trees for 6.1 million protein coding genes from sequenced prokaryotic genomes in order to reconstruct the microbial ecology of LUCA. Among 286,514 protein clusters, we identified 355 protein families (∼0.1%) that trace to LUCA by phylogenetic criteria. Because these proteins are not universally distributed, they can shed light on LUCA's physiology. Their functions, properties and prosthetic groups depict LUCA as anaerobic, CO2-fixing, H2-dependent with a Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, N2-fixing and thermophilic. LUCA's biochemistry was replete with FeS clusters and radical reaction mechanisms. Its cofactors reveal dependence upon transition metals, flavins, S-adenosyl methionine, coenzyme A, ferredoxin, molybdopterin, corrins and selenium. Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations. The 355 phylogenies identify clostridia and methanogens, whose modern lifestyles resemble that of LUCA, as basal among their respective domains. LUCA inhabited a geochemically active environment rich in H2, CO2 and iron. The data support the theory of an autotrophic origin of life involving the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway in a hydrothermal setting.
​

Asserting "The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO" is, IMO, the height of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.



Enjoy the reading.

i dont think that we have a good evidence for a common descent that we can realy test. a lots of scientific papers made many mystakes. can you explain why do you think that they have a good evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

 

[DogmaHunter]

someone have made this:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

Not according to the source that you pulled it from.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i dont think that we have a good evidence for a common descent that we can realy test.

Off course we do.
All it takes is some genetic sequencing and tracing genes or entire sequences.

You know.... the same way that we can test if you and your sister actually share the same biological parents.

a lots of scientific papers made many mystakes. can you explain why do you think that they have a good evidence for a common descent rather then a common designer?

Nested hierarchies.
Phylogenies.
Fossil record.
Comparative anatomy.
Geographic distribution of species.
etc etc etc.


There are more then 200.000 papers on the topic.

 

[xianghua]

Not according to the source that you pulled it from.

a source that claiming that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design? yeah right...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

someone have made this:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

....so why would a common designer use two completely different methods of locomotion for two versions of a single-celled life form, wouldn't it be easier just to copy what's already there?

 

[toLiJC]

The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO. Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.

However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species. It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven. Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?

I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.

Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time? Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.

there is neither biological evolution, nor reincarnational - there is simply no chance of any of these happening

Blessings

 

[lesliedellow]

there is neither biological evolution, nor reincarnational - there is simply no chance of any of these happening

Blessings

Now there is an absolutely conclusive argument, if ever I heard one. I mean, who could possibly believe that evolution is true after that?

 

[toLiJC]

There is an absolutely conclusive argument, if ever I heard one. I mean, who could possibly believe that evolution is true after that?

i gave that at least as a food for thought - some people know exactly why, but others haven't yet understood

Blessings

 

[sfs]

i gave that at least as a food for thought - some people know exactly why, but others haven't yet understood

As food for thought your comment lacked nutritional value.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

However, there are always exceptions. Just how involved and related those exceptions are is what helps to determine the validity of something, and the influence.

So what, in your view, are the exceptions in this context that are significant enough that you thought it worth mentioning?

 

[Subduction Zone]

someone have made this:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

No, the evolution of that is fairly well understood. Here is a simplified version for you:

 

[xianghua]

No, the evolution of that is fairly well understood. Here is a simplified version for you:

it's only a hypothetical model with several assumptions.

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

 

[RDKirk]

The sum total of the evidence points to singular-cellular life being the first life on Earth and then evolving and diversifying into the life we have today (over the 4+ billion years it's been on Earth). Unfortunately there is no evidence of numerous individual, independent organisms being created.

Okay, so taking that into consideration....

Considering how lush the environment was for life to originate on earth, if with all that lushness there managed to be only a single cell that managed it (or managed to survive)....

How likely can it be that life developed anywhere that was less lush?

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's only a hypothetical model with several assumptions.

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

Please, whenever creationists use the word "assumptions" without specific examples they lose. My side has an explanation, you have nothing.

You are the one that needs to try again.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So what, in your view, are the exceptions in this context that are significant enough that you thought it worth mentioning?

I tried to bring up how the mathematics is related to the biology in a simplistic way (when I brought up renormalization, error and the decay rate error example,) but in general there is a problem with assuming the fundamentals stay the same over time - which would give the implication that our measurements of other fundamentals that follow (i.e. decay rates, counts, charge and mass) are also constant over the age of the earth and universe. This is not the case in reality; indeed, it was not the case in the beginning of the universe. For example, coupling constants have drift.

Spoiler: A note on these changes and renormalization

It is tempting to say that the fundamentals have driven to a constant for which we can use, but again this is also based on the assumption that the metrics we use to determine these fundamentals have also remained constant. Some of these fundamentals do vary - not with time, but momenta. The fine structure "constant," for example can change with scattering energy. We have to renormalize coupling constants to evolve correction terms. The renormalization of the Higgs Boson determines the mass of other particles. The neutrino was "found" by assuming spin must be conserved (not only energy and mass,) and proposing a theoretical particle that accounts for this difference. Even now, there is still a problem with neutrino handedness (and flavor oscillation.) This particle is a fundamental particle for weak force.

These fundamentals are taken for granted when applied to theories like evolution, quantum mechanics or even relativity (there is a serious problem with the cosmological constants related to the issues of constants being nonconstant). Coupling constants are assumed to be the same throughout the history of the earth, and are used to justify constant decay rates which we use to date organic and inorganic material. Our U-clocks use this assumption.

Spoiler: A note on the affect of exceptions, and my stylistic and expressive motivation

The exceptions in practice may be marginal, but they really aren't since we are using a time scale that is very large - on the scale of the magnitude of the inverse of the time it takes a radioisotope to evolve one hyperfine transition between from the ground state. So, the assumptions being made are (at the most fundamental level) open to [large] error counts.

The changes depend on momenta - and these fundamentals do change. It is just that things like supersymmetry and (re)normalization have evolved the fundamentals that we have taken for granted as constants, and therefore apply and extrapolate to other theories and models.

I can show this in the same way I think you have seen me show some other material - written/illustrated. Or, we can continue this discussion privately if you are really that interested. However, I am not going to derail this thread any more in an attempt to explain how a change in fundamentals can change an entire theory that depends on those fundamentals being constant. I have repeatedly said evolution is a theory that works, but it is not the unique solution to the progress of the physical world - including biological processes. I have been flippantly told on these forums to show my scholarly work, or write a paper if I think I know so much about this - or even provide a paper that would suggest a different model. I have done this in real life, and I wont do that on any public forum because long before the Social Media Age I have had my intellectual property "borrowed." The most I have shown since (at the extreme chivvying of some persons) is something that is provable/calculable by reading a text. I have no problem taking the pointed scrutiny of asserting something without showing what people want (even though most of what I have said can be verified on one's own power through the math/physics.) Everyone is responsible for their own intellectual trajectory, and claiming you were just "following orders," while rejecting everything you or the standard finds incredulous is dangerously flawed. We have fought many wars, and killed many people based on scientifically closed status quo. I have provided work on this platform before - verifiable - that was dismissed. So, there is no incentive for me to prove what I have said just so that someone can tell me I don't know what I am talking about, and then I see my work 10 years later printed in Nature (for example, of course.) [/SPIOILER]

In your case, I know we disagree on several scientific issues, but as long as your mind is open (without necessarily accepting anything/everything I say,) we have no problem. We don't have to agree at all, but we also don't have to slap each other in the face by claiming one party doesn't know what they are talking about, and parading credentials on the internet as if it matters, and cannot be fabricated or stolen. As the proverb goes, my "yes" means yes, and my "no" means no. You ask me a question, and I will tell you what I know or think to be true. I am not academically, spiritually, socially or colloquially dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tried to bring up how the mathematics is related to the biology in a simplistic way (when I brought up renormalization, error and the decay rate error example,) but in general there is a problem with assuming the fundamentals stay the same over time - which would give the implication that our measurements of other fundamentals that follow (i.e. decay rates, counts, charge and mass) are also constant over the age of the earth and universe. This is not the case in reality; indeed, it was not the case in the beginning of the universe. For example, coupling constants have drift.

Spoiler: A note on these changes and renormalization

It is tempting to say that the fundamentals have driven to a constant for which we can use, but again this is also based on the assumption that the metrics we use to determine these fundamentals have also remained constant. Some of these fundamentals do vary - not with time, but momenta. The fine structure "constant," for example can change with scattering energy. We have to renormalize coupling constants to evolve correction terms. The renormalization of the Higgs Boson determines the mass of other particles. The neutrino was "found" by assuming spin must be conserved (not only energy and mass,) and proposing a theoretical particle that accounts for this difference. Even now, there is still a problem with neutrino handedness (and flavor oscillation.) This particle is a fundamental particle for weak force.

Spoiler: A note on these changes and renormalization

And your errors and strawman argument was explained to you. You ignored the correction.

These fundamentals are taken for granted when applied to theories like evolution, quantum mechanics or even relativity (there is a serious problem with the cosmological constants related to the issues of constants being nonconstant). Coupling constants are assumed to be the same throughout the history of the earth, and are used to justify constant decay rates which we use to date organic and inorganic material. Our U-clocks use this assumption.

Spoiler: A note on the affect of exceptions, and my stylistic and expressive motivation

The exceptions in practice may be marginal, but they really aren't since we are using a time scale that is very large - on the scale of the magnitude of the inverse of the time it takes a radioisotope to evolve one hyperfine transition between from the ground state. So, the assumptions being made are (at the most fundamental level) open to [large] error counts.

The changes depend on momenta - and these fundamentals do change. It is just that things like supersymmetry and (re)normalization have evolved the fundamentals that we have taken for granted as constants, and therefore apply and extrapolate to other theories and models.

I can show this in the same way I think you have seen me show some other material - written/illustrated. Or, we can continue this discussion privately if you are really that interested. However, I am not going to derail this thread any more in an attempt to explain how a change in fundamentals can change an entire theory that depends on those fundamentals being constant. I have repeatedly said evolution is a theory that works, but it is not the unique solution to the progress of the physical world - including biological processes. I have been flippantly told on these forums to show my scholarly work, or write a paper if I think I know so much about this - or even provide a paper that would suggest a different model. I have done this in real life, and I wont do that on any public forum because long before the Social Media Age I have had my intellectual property "borrowed." The most I have shown since (at the extreme chivvying of some persons) is something that is provable/calculable by reading a text. I have no problem taking the pointed scrutiny of asserting something without showing what people want (even though most of what I have said can be verified on one's own power through the math/physics.) Everyone is responsible for their own intellectual trajectory, and claiming you were just "following orders," while rejecting everything you or the standard finds incredulous is dangerously flawed. We have fought many wars, and killed many people based on scientifically closed status quo. I have provided work on this platform before - verifiable - that was dismissed. So, there is no incentive for me to prove what I have said just so that someone can tell me I don't know what I am talking about, and then I see my work 10 years later printed in Nature (for example, of course.) [/SPIOILER]

In your case, I know we disagree on several scientific issues, but as long as your mind is open (without necessarily accepting anything/everything I say,) we have no problem. We don't have to agree at all, but we also don't have to slap each other in the face by claiming one party doesn't know what they are talking about, and parading credentials on the internet as if it matters, and cannot be fabricated or stolen. As the proverb goes, my "yes" means yes, and my "no" means no. You ask me a question, and I will tell you what I know or think to be true. I am not academically, spiritually, socially or colloquially dishonest.

I see that you are still hung up on radioactive decay. That is only one line of evidence that the Earth is old. You really should study the concept of consilience. You could not find an excuse for trying to apply renormalization. By even your standards there was no reason to use that tool. And when you misapply a tool of course you are going to get wrong answers.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

it's only a hypothetical model with several assumptions.

so we basically have a fact (a motor need a designer) against a belief ( a motor can evolve naturally). please try again...

That is the main problem often ignored: there must be a plethora of assumptions that must be made in order for the theory to work. It is interesting that the ancients from which we pull our math and philosophy from did not consider this theory in seriousness.

The resistance comes from academic pressure, programming and a culture of fear that what some have built their entire professional academic careers on (what their credentials are based on) may be completely false - and all of the years of schooling learning about these things are, in fact, not true/wrong. This is why I just move on after a certain point; this is a common dialectic in academia.

If we were just having a philosophical discussion where no one was intellectually threatened, there would be limited insecure exchanges that have been seen on this post, and in these forums.