Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Loudmouth]

That's not what you said, what you said was

That's the same thing. 35 subsititions plus 5 million indels.

The facts directly contradict your statement:

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)
​

It doesn't contradict the fact that there are 35 million substitutions and 5 million indels. For the purposes of the mutation rate, 1 indel counts as 1 mutation. A 10 base indel does not count as 10 mutations.

What are you not understanding about this?

Never mind the fact that they have to be permanently fixed throughout the entire population, some of these mutations would be over a million base pairs long. The consequences would be disastrous.

Why would they be disastrous?

No, the divergence triples.

There are not 3 times as many indels as substitutions. Indels are 1/6th as numerous as substititions.

Again, a 10 base indel counts as 1 mutation, not 10. Why can't you understand this?

When the divergence per nucleotide is 1.33% is high due to the multiplicative effects on fitness it is at least three times more devastating when three times as much DNA is involved.

That makes zero sense. A 1 base indel could be much worse than a 3 base indel. A substitution mutation resulting in a stop codon could be much more disastrous than a 6 base indel. A million base indel in junk DNA could be much less detrimental than a non-synonymous substitution mutation in a functional gene.

You are just making stuff up.

This is what it says:

We observed a total of 199 differences between the human and chimpanzee sequences: 131 transitions (66%), 52 transversions (26%), and 16 insertion-deletion variants (8%). Insertion-deletion variants were less than one-tenth as common as nucleotide substitutions and consisted of changes of 1 bp (8 mutations), 2 bp (5 mutations), 3 bp (1 mutation), and 4 bp (2 mutations). Thus, 15/16 of these insertion-deletion variants would have resulted in frameshift mutations in coding regions. (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans Genetics 2000)
​

Notice 15/16 insertion-deletions would have resulted in frameshifts. Something you think can't happen because you always assume substitutions with beneficial effects. The longest in this study is 3bp with all but one creating a frameshift. Just can't wrap your mind around deleterious effects can you?

First, how do indels in non-coding DNA cause frame shifts?

Second, they list the NUMBER of indels as part of their mutation rate, not the total number of bases changed. Did you notice that?

Never said they were, put down the club and step away from the strawman.

YOU DID SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are using the total number of BASES changed in the mutation rate. THIS IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!

You aren't counting each indel as a single mutation. You are citing the total number of BASES that differ between the genomes instead of the number of mutations.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm almost entirely underwhelmed. Here's my favorite example:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
​

That's getting pretty close to the Cambrian with the primates emerging about 90 mya. In all that time only 2 substitutions are allowed then suddenly about 2mya 18 substitutions, no explanation how. That's not the only one, then there is the SRGAP2 gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…

Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all…

duplicated, spliced into different locations on the chromosome, then precisely rearranged and altered with new functions—all without disrupting the then-existing ape brain and all by accidental mutations… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)
​

But wait there's more:

These include genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1)…(Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)​

Supposedly proceeding from:

a surge of genomic duplications over the last 10 million years…(Cell May 2012)
​

The only explanation is to wiggle your nose, tap your heels, and keep saying the magic word, natural selection, :

this mechanism provides a means for rapid evolutionary change of an otherwise constrained developmental gene…selective pressures acting on SRGAP2…while maintaining purifying selection…. relaxation of selective pressure on the duplicate copies….(Cell May 2012)
​

Ad infinitum ad nauseam. Darwinism is a leach, it feeds off of Genetics and gives nothing in return. Remove Darwinism from Biology and it would be unchanged, remove genetics from Darwinism and you have a modern myth of a stone age ape man that never existed.

Have a nice day
Mark

What are you on about? How does your example show that evolution can't happen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Natturalist assumption of universal common descent of all life.

It is not assumed. It is evidenced.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I did answer it. It's not a theory because it's an impossible burden of proof for an inductive proof and it's not an hypothesis because there is no null hypothesis.

The theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy for species that do not participate in lateral genetic transfer. The null hypothesis is the lack of a nested hierarchy. This is an easily testable hypothesis.

I have shown you this over and over and over, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[AdamSK]

You know what has remained 100% consistent has been dragging the discussion off topic and substituting fallacious logic.

Nope, still not fallacious logic. Still not an ad hominem.
You can keep whining about how, in addition to explaining how bereft of reason your arguments are, people also opine as to why you display such startling ignorance. The latter do not invalidate the former nor transform them into fallacious reasoning. And your focus on the latter is typically worse than the comments themselves.

 

[mark kennedy]

Whilst most mathematicians would have heard of Thales and Pythagoras, they are minor figures in the history of mathematics. It is Euclid they would recognise as being the person who established an approach to mathematics which is still the corner stone of mathematics today.

Euclid was one of their students, it just kills me how you guys are always some kind of an expert.

Absolute and undiluted nonsense.

Funny my math professor just smiled and said that's true, never thought of it that way.

Whilst every mathematician is very familiar with differential and integral calculus, I very much doubt that any of them have sat down and tried to write out a one line definition of calculus. What I am quite sure of is that they wouldn't recognise yours as bearing any relation to reality.

I don't do calculus but I know what it is. Newton used it to track the course of the parabolic curve a comet was traveling and predicted when it would appear in the other sky. Without calculus tools and modern machinery would be impossible. Math has not progressed from calculus even though non-euclidean systems abound.

Leibnitz is famous for discovering calculus at around the same time as Newton. Thereafter they spent the rest of their lives accusing one another of Plagiarism.

The only quote I found from Newton he says they were working on the same thing and the only difference was the symbols. Leibnitz was stuck and turned to Newton for help, after a while Newton he was busy and couldn't field his questions anymore.

That is just about the only thing you managed to get right.

I think you know nothing about biology. I am sure you know nothing about mathematics.

It's fascinating how Creationists are automatically assumed to know nothing and being an evolutionist makes you the expert. What I know about biology isn't important since you haven't had the slightest interest in anything remotely scientific.

A few days ago I mentioned that I had a book called "The Geometry of Spacetime" close by. Another book I own is a postgraduate level book called "Quantum Theory for Mathematicians." Does that give you any clue as to what my degree might be in?

I'm sure I don't care, higher math has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[RickG]

It's not, a theory explains all the facts and all the facts from natural history in all of time with regards to the origin and development of life is impossible by inductive means. It's not a theory, it's an a priori assumption.

The scientific community does not agree with you. Here's a question for you, what scientific evidence shows evolution to be false? Keep in mind I am specifically asking for scientific evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, still not fallacious logic. Still not an ad hominem.

Yep, still nothing but personal remarks that have no relevance to anything substantive. There used to be an army of trollers like yourself, fortunately since the culture wars are over they have peeled off. Their only purpose is to insult and contradict creationists, there is one in every thread and it's like they disciplined to never let the discussion stay on topic.

You can keep whining about how, in addition to explaining how bereft of reason your arguments are, people also opine as to why you display such startling ignorance. The latter do not invalidate the former nor transform them into fallacious reasoning. And your focus on the latter is typically worse than the comments themselves.

Whining? I'm just jousting with you because it's been a while since anyone actually made an interesting comment. Usually if I wait long enough someone will wander in and give the conversation a little spark. As long as your making a mess of things it's probably not going to happen, which I think is your whole purpose.

It always ends with these empty ad hominem fallacies, your case would appear to be terminal.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

The scientific community does not agree with you. Here's a question for you, what scientific evidence shows evolution to be false? Keep in mind I am specifically asking for scientific evidence.

First of all evolution is not one thing but two. It's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means aka Darwinism. The scientific definition of evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, which would make everyone an evolutionist.

It's called equivocation, what you are calling evolution is actually a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. So why don't you get a good working definition, quit trying to suck me in with an equivocation fallacy and ask a real question.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a question for you, what scientific evidence shows evolution to be false?

None that I can think of.

But even bad science can be fitted into the theory of evolution.

Ever heard of Nebraska Man or Haeckel's Embryos?

Science doesn't have to be accurate, just convincing.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have given literally ZERO EVIDENCE for any one of your claims.

The topic was derailed by trollers pages ago, the introduction of actual evidence now would be meaningless.

You simply saying it, is not evidence. It is a claim and a claim only. How hard is this for you to understand?

You just said nothing in circles, it would not be so bad if it were not so common.

And if anyone who doesn't think the rules of logic apply to them, it is you, sir. And it is incredibly ironic that you accuse others of putting forward ad hominem arguments and yet you have problem using them yourself.

It doesn't matter where it starts, fossils, genomics, history, philosophy. You guys bust in with you inflammatory personal taunts deriding any semblance of civility and burn the topic to the ground. It doesn't matter where it starts it's always bogged down with the inevitable ad hominem attacks. It used to annoy me then I realize, it's conceding the point when you resort to fallacious logic, it's proof positive you have nothing else.

They lied to you, someone has convinced you that if you are opposed to creationism that makes you enlightened or otherwise more esoteric. It's not true, when you resort to these empty rhetorical devices it makes you look foolish. They will let you because it wears people out and creationists are generally Christians who believe in being civil. That's why so few actually post on here and some of the ones who do are probably evolutionist sock puppets.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

None that I can think of.

But even bad science can be fitted into the theory of evolution.

Ever heard of Nebraska Man or Haeckel's Embryos?

Science doesn't have to be accurate, just convincing.

Don't forget Piltdown and did you ever notice there are no Chimpanzees in the fossil record? At any rate, the Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangatav jawbone. Even Louise Leaky, the famous paleontologist has said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived. The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leaky that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[RickG]

First of all evolution is not one thing but two. It's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means aka Darwinism. The scientific definition of evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, which would make everyone an evolutionist.

It's called equivocation, what you are calling evolution is actually a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. So why don't you get a good working definition, quit trying to suck me in with an equivocation fallacy and ask a real question.

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark, I really would appreciate an answer to my question, "What scientific shows evolution to be false?"

Thanks.

 

[RickG]

None that I can think of.

But even bad science can be fitted into the theory of evolution.

Yes it is, and it goes by the name of "creation science".

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all evolution is not one thing but two. It's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means aka Darwinism.

We have evidence for both common ancestry and for Darwinian mechanisms. It isn't assumed.

It's called equivocation, what you are calling evolution is actually a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism.

It is a scientific theory. I even gave you a falsifiable hypothesis that you are ignoring.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't forget Piltdown and did you ever notice there are no Chimpanzees in the fossil record? At any rate, the Piltdown Hoax was the flagship transitional of Darwinism for nearly half a century and it was a hoax. A skull taken from a mass grave site used during the Black Plague matched up with an orangatav jawbone. Even Louise Leaky, the famous paleontologist has said that jaw didn’t belong with that skull so people knew, long before it was exposed, that Piltdown was contrived. The problem was that there was nothing to replace it as a transitional from ape to man. Concurrent with the prominence of the Piltdown fossil Raymond Dart had reported on the skull of an ape that had filled with lime creating an endocast or a model of what the brain would have looked like. Everyone considered it a chimpanzee child since it’s cranial capacity was just over 400cc but with the demise of Piltdown a new icon was needed in the Darwinian theater of the mind. Raymond Dart suggests to Louis Leaky that a small brained human ancestor might have been responsible for some of the supposed tools the Leaky family was finding in Africa. The myth of the stone age ape man was born.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Which of these is Piltdown Man?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First of all evolution is not one thing but two. It's the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means aka Darwinism. The scientific definition of evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, which would make everyone an evolutionist.

It's called equivocation, what you are calling evolution is actually a philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism. So why don't you get a good working definition, quit trying to suck me in with an equivocation fallacy and ask a real question.

Have a nice day
Mark

Me and RickG have asked your scientific evidence that shows that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis. And you have once again failed to follow through with those requests.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The topic was derailed by trollers pages ago, the introduction of actual evidence now would be meaningless.

You just said nothing in circles, it would not be so bad if it were not so common.

It doesn't matter where it starts, fossils, genomics, history, philosophy. You guys bust in with you inflammatory personal taunts deriding any semblance of civility and burn the topic to the ground. It doesn't matter where it starts it's always bogged down with the inevitable ad hominem attacks. It used to annoy me then I realize, it's conceding the point when you resort to fallacious logic, it's proof positive you have nothing else.

They lied to you, someone has convinced you that if you are opposed to creationism that makes you enlightened or otherwise more esoteric. It's not true, when you resort to these empty rhetorical devices it makes you look foolish. They will let you because it wears people out and creationists are generally Christians who believe in being civil. That's why so few actually post on here and some of the ones who do are probably evolutionist sock puppets.

Have a nice day
Mark

And once again, not a single piece of scientific evidence presented to show that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis. Just more empty rhetoric and a holier-than-thou attitude from you.

 

[VirOptimus]

And once again, not a single piece of scientific evidence presented to show that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis. Just more empty rhetoric and a holier-than-thou attitude from you.

I predict a meltdown and taking his ball and going home soon.

 

[lesliedellow]

Euclid was one of their students, it just kills me how you guys are always some kind of an expert.

If Euclid was a student of Pythagoras or Thales, that was really very clever of him, because he lived about three centuries after they did.

Funny my math professor just smiled and said that's true, never thought of it that way.

You are so bowled over by your estimate of your own cleverness, it would never occur to you that he was humouring you.

I don't do calculus but I know what it is.

So you profess your own ignorance, and then carry on talking out of your posterior. You self evidently do not know what it is; you have just latched on to a use which was made of it.

Newton used it to track the course of the parabolic curve a comet was traveling and predicted when it would appear in the other sky. Without calculus tools and modern machinery would be impossible. Math has not progressed from calculus even though non-euclidean systems abound.

Mathematics has progressed way past where it was in Newton's day. Newton wouldn't even pass a first year undergraduate exam in real variable analysis today.

The only quote I found from Newton he says they were working on the same thing and the only difference was the symbols. Leibnitz was stuck and turned to Newton for help, after a while Newton he was busy and couldn't field his questions anymore.

Leibnitz never cooperated with Newton, and the difference between them was a lot more than just different symbols. As I have already said, Leibnitz's approach was much closer to a present day mathematician's ideas about mathematical rigour. Newton was a typical physicist, and just so long as something seemed to work, that was good enough for him.

It's fascinating how Creationists are automatically assumed to know nothing and being an evolutionist makes you the expert.What I know about biology isn't important since you haven't had the slightest interest in anything remotely scientific.

So Relativity and Quantum Theory aren't scientific. That's interesting.

I'm sure I don't care, higher math has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You have been trying to tell me what calculus is, and what algebra is, so who it is who is qualified as a mathematician, and who it is that isn't, is very much to the point.