Looking for all the missing links

[Mr Strawberry]

Who you talkin about? Get yer facts straight, bub!

Are you not an evolution denier?

 

[AV1611VET]

Newton's theory of gravity made some pretty good predictions also. They got the job done up until advanced forms of transportation came along. Then they needed a new theory to keep up with the changing times. Einstein working in the Patient office saw this need.

Scientists used to say there was such a thing as zero gravity; now, they've amended that to say it is microgravity.

 

[razeontherock]

Scientists used to say there was such a thing as zero gravity; now, they've amended that to say it is microgravity.

Is that anything like microfiber? (No wonder why sales of microfiber couches are up)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.

Discussing people's posting style and the logical validity of their posts is an entirely reasonable thing to do in a thread such as this. It's hardly behind Astrid's back (as gossip would be), and she has the opportunity to address my points if she wants to.

 

[razeontherock]

Discussing people's posting style and the logical validity of their posts is an entirely reasonable thing to do in a thread such as this. It's hardly behind Astrid's back (as gossip would be), and she has the opportunity to address my points if she wants to.

Another atheist has a really scraggly beard (Intentional gossip)

 

[AnotherAtheist]

And so, as new fossils and new organisms were found, they were placed in this nested hierarchy, and, lo and behold, everything fit, just as evolutionary biology predicted that it would.

^This

The theory of evolution does not predict that life fits together in any particular way. It just predicts that life fits together into a phylogenetic and cladistic trees. Evolution doesn't even predict a single source for life.

That we are still working out exactly how life all fits together says nothing about evolution.

If we find organisms with no particular relationship to other organisms on life, then that would be a problem for evolution. Where are these organisms that don't fit in?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Another atheist has a really scraggly beard (Intentional gossip)

Not gossip as it's not behind my back. And I can address the issue.

I always used to hate shaving until I tried the Azor razor system. Used to cut myself to shreds.

Now I can be very clean shaven, and very rarely cut myself shaving. I've tried some of the "high tech" razors from Schick, and while they were OK, I prefer the Azor.

gos·sip (gsp)
n.
1. Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
3. Trivial, chatty talk or writing.
4. A close friend or companion.
5. Chiefly British A godparent.
intr.v. gos·siped, gos·sip·ing, gos·sips
To engage in or spread gossip.

As I"m discussing Astrid's public posts and her posting style only, I don't think this is "rumour or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature". I don't think it's "trivial, chatty talk or writing" either.

Now that we've addressed this distraction argument, does Astrid herself want to defend her posting style and the logical validity of her arguments and use of scientific references?

 

[razeontherock]

I always used to hate shaving until I tried the Azor razor system.

Not Occam's?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

talking about people is gossiping. Talking to people is conversation. Just so you know.

It is interesting that evolution explains the human species' addiction to gossip, but I've never heard a religious explanation.

 

[Roseheart]

It is interesting that evolution explains the human species' addiction to gossip, but I've never heard a religious explanation.

Would that not be explained by the sin nature?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Would that not be explained by the sin nature?

It depends if you consider all gossip to be sinful. Exchanging information that has to do with the reputation of people we know could be essential for our own good, which is why evolution has selected for it. Is it better or not to hear if someone is considered a cheat/promiscuous/thief/untrustworthy/liar/bad ally/bad parent etc? (This in turn requires us to evaluate the reliability of the source, which requires a certain type of intelligence, which surprise, surprise we have in abundance.) Is it bad to find out that someone may do us wrong? Is that sinful? If it isn't then sin doesn't work as an explanation of why we find gossip as compelling as eating fatty food.

 

[Astridhere]

As I couldn't keep up with the threads here, I had to take a step back.

It's interesting to see how Astrid posts.

She quotes a lot of references. A lot of these don't support her arguments. E.g. she posts links showing that the phylogenetic tree has been modified over the years as more evidence has come in and better theories to explain evolution has come in. She tries to paint this quite normal procedure as indicating something "wrong" with evolution, but doesn't actually say what it is that is "wrong" or why we should be concerned if the phylogenetic tree is refined and improved over time.

Who on earth do you think you are to make such allegations about me.

Let's see what you are on about.

She does bluster a bit. E.g. she posted the John Sanford link. I looked into it, found problems, found a sophisticated analysis of his work, read some more, and figured out what was wrong with it. When I posted my response, I received a blustering "get over it". But, Astrid didn't actually address my points concerning why Sanford's simulations were based on poor models of mutation and variation to the point where the predictions of his model mean nothing. But she hasn't addressed these issues. And personally I'm not convinced that she can. She posts a lot of scientific looking links, but I don't think she really understands the content of her links, and hence can't construct an argument based on them. She can only post, and bluster. I'd be happy to be proved wrong here, but that's all I'm seeing so far.

What crap you go on with. Here you are with over 150 years of instability and falsification of what was once called evidence...down the dunny and you want to have a shot at Sanford.

In fact mutations generally bring about deleterious effects. Hence your evolutionary scientists support Sanford but they do not have the guts to say so.

Indeed Sanfords work is just as credible as any of the flavour of the months you can produce. Many scientists support his work and they know more than you.

Uncommon Descent | Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book

Indeed this research below states that most clades showed a bias towards DECREASING complexity just as Sanford stated.

She's done some similar blustering with the Vitamin C example. The point was raised as to why humans have only the first few steps of vitamin C synthesis present, but the last step doesn't work. Why would a God make us work that way? But Astrid suddenly posts a link to a paper about mammals being able to synthesise or not synthesise Vitamin C, again with a blustering put-down. I looked at the paper and I can't see how it supports her argument.

The point you missed is that your researchers actually see nothing. That is the fact. What they see is what an algorithm spits out.

Don't forget these boofheads of yours thought non coding DNA was junk. That was until it was found to be functional.

Some scientists have suggested that loss of the vitamin C biosynthesis pathway may have played a role in the theory of rapid evolutionary changes, leading to hominids and the emergence of human beings.[25][26]

[27] However, another theory based on the theory of evolution is that the loss of ability to make vitamin C in simians may have occurred much farther back in evolutionary history than the emergence of humans or even apes, since it evidently occurred rather soon after the appearance of the first primates, yet sometime after the split of early primates into its two major suborders haplorrhini (which cannot make vitamin C) and its sister suborder of non-tarsier prosimians, the strepsirrhini ("wet-nosed" primates), which retained the ability to make vitamin C.[28] According to molecular clock dating, these two suborder primate branches parted ways about 63 to 60 Mya[29] Approximately three to five million years later (58 Mya), only a short time afterward from an evolutionary perspective, the infraorder Tarsiiformes, whose only remaining family is that of the tarsier (Tarsiidae), branched off from the other haplorrhines.[30][31] Since tarsiers also cannot make vitamin C, this implies the mutation had already occurred, and thus must have occurred between these two marker points (63 to 58 Mya).
Vitamin C - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Primate phylogeny, evolutionary rate variations, and divergence times: A contribution from the nuclear gene IRBP - Poux - 2003 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library


So which scenario or theory about vitamin C do you believe? They can't both be right but they can both be wrong. Indeed the fact that this algorithmic magic is as clear as mud supports my assertion that these evo researchers are groping in the dark and the truth be known have no idea what they are talking about.

If the ability to produce vitamin C was lost before apes were supposed to have evolved, why do you suppose this so called ghost or remnant is still observable in some primates and not others. I'll tell you why. Because it is all rubbish.

It does look like Astrid is posting something that has the surface appearance of a scientific argument, but which lacks the underlying logic.

That's my analysis, anyhow.

Well I get blessings, so some here like what I have to say and what you think really does not matter.

Your analysis can go sit with the rest of your misrepresented evolutionary supports in that huge garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well I get blessings, so some here like what I have to say and what you think really does not matter.

If getting plaudits from creationists is your only goal it may explain why your posts give the "surface appearance of scientific argument, but lack the underlying logic".

I do wonder, however, if even the creationist peanut gallery is convinced by the way you react to criticism.

 

[Astridhere]

The gene is still there in humans, it is just no longer functional.
If you actually read the lin I gave you then you wouldn't have mentioned epigenetics in your post - it is irrelevant to human's inability to synthesise ascorbic acid.
As I said, the existance of this pseudogene was predicted by evolutionary theory. That is what scientific theories do, they allow us to build a model of the world and make predictions from it.


Again, read the link.
Note it wasn't a random person's webpage - it was research done by scientists, experts in their field.
They have examined Y chromosomes and realised that they are far more succeptable to change than others, and they tell you why.
No hand waving required.

You can say as many words as you like. The comparison means a 30% difference in the Y chromosme and it was not predicted and not expected. If you read the link I provided it states the ability to produce vitamin C or not is somatic and has reversed in various lines of assumed descent.

Your researchers do not see anything. They get results from biased algorithms that.

I do actually.
It is not a ghost it is a remnant from our past just sat there like a piece of junk in our genome.

Respond away, be my guest.
But you have scorned otheres for not including links to data, research and evidence - yet provide none yourself.
If you have no intention of looking when people do provide links, then we have nothing to talk about.
Besides, even if you do read them I know you won't be bothered, you'll just look for a creationist refutation of it and spoon feed us that instead.

Get over yourself. You have refered to the research I present. Indeed you are responding to some in this post, finally.

The research I provide supports me in principle. For example if I say that the chimp and human genome are not similar at all and present research that speaks to the huge chunks of missing genomic material, insertions and deletions, the remarkable difference in the Y chromosomes, the cimp genome being 10% larger, the surface structure being different, all of which you should be aware of, then I have presented evidence for my view. Much of this info was in my link to the myth of 1%. Do I need to repost it?

Likewise with natans and indohyus.

You can say I do not support my view as much as you like. Anyone that can read can see you are a liar.

Many dinosaurs had hollow bones, so they are not uniquely bird features - such as A. riocoloradensis - yet they have survived also.
i fail to see how your timeline suports creationism though, maybe you would like to explain that one.

The point is you have modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and only 8my after dinos were supposed to have evolved. Like you lot, who don't even have one common ancestor to present for anything.

However it is good you say that dinosaurs have hollow bones. Now this silly reseachers of yours can recant their crap about hollow bones being an adaptation to flight, unless you are suggesting riocoloradensis flew.

Especially the bit about flying birds coming before dinosaurs because fish can fly - I'm afraid that made no sense, I must have mis-understood what you were trying to say. While you're at it, why don't you just describe your scenario to us, and include any evidence you think is pertianant. After all, if you are correct and I have been misled, I would much rather know the truth than blindly follow a conspiracy.

You miss the point. Gliding is a skill that fish has that is all that was meant to suggest. The bible states that the creatures of the sea and birds were created closely together and before land animals. Finding 212myo modern footprints is much better support for this than we had before and it is great for me and a headache for your researchers.

Actually, I don't think you have any answers.

I appear to have more than you.

Yeah, they are so alike its almost scary.
Just to note, if A. natans really is a seal it is hopelessly out of place.
The oldest seal-like finds have been around 10-12 millions years old, and are found around the pacific then southern hemisphere. Whale ancestors have been found around what was once the tethys sea and date to around 50 million years ago. I should also remind you that the genetic evidence suggests that modern day whales are most closely related to hippos, and so they shared a common ancestor which was a hooved land mammal.
Pinnipeds are closely related to bears, and hence are in the order Carnivora. You will notice that whales are not in this order, they are cetaceans.
So if a magic poof takes nearly 50 million years and requires numerous intermediate stages then wow, I believe in magic.
Especially Penn & Teller, those guys are great.



That's becasue you just make it all up as you go along.....

Which actually means that you don't care if you are actually right cos your mind is made up, any evidence that comes along to disprove you is either hand waving, magic or just plain lies.
At the end of the day human knowledge and understanding has flourished once we learned to look for new evidence and remodel our views to make sure they were correct, able to fit every piece of data around.
to say 'that's it, there is nothing new that will make me look wrong' is just silly.
Plus, the DNA is conclusive.
Evolution is a fact - get over it and enjoy your life.

Sea lion.

Ambulocetus Natans.

Ringed Seal on display in Barrow Alaska.

Indeed Natans more closely resembles a sea lion or seal than a whale. And let's not forget this is a reconstruction just like the Neanderthal woopsie regardless of having a plethora of fossils. Natans is described as moving like a seal. Indeed given the great range in skulls that belong to the one species, dog, this fossil is more likely to be a seal or sea lion relative than a whale.

Indohyus

Mouse deer

Indohyus is just like a mouse deer. Indohyus more closely resembles a mouse deer than anything else.

Evolutionists have lost the art of observation and use algorithmic magic and imagination instead, it apears!

You evos have nothing more than misrepresentation to present in a desperate attempt to find intermediates.

Nothing I offer nor any interpretation of the data I present could be worse than the 150 years or falsifications and instability you evos have to offer.

 

[rikerjoe]

- snip blather -

Not much contents there, but to keep it short;

Your analysis can go sit with the rest of your misrepresented mockery of knowledge and learning in that garbage bin of delusions of certainty.

 

[rikerjoe]

You can say as many words as you like.

So can you it seems... doesn't help you much...

Nothing I offer nor any interpretation of the data I present could be worse than the 150 years or falsifications and instability you evos have to offer.

If only you had anything to offer....

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Who on earth do you think you are to make such allegations about me.

I'm a person who has debated with you, challenged you on your faulty logic several times, but never received a proper answer. I'm very disappointed, as when you posted the link to Sanford's simulation, I thought there was the opportunity for some proper debate. As while Sanford's errors are obvious upon careful examination, they weren't so glaringly obvious that they are in instant facepalm territory. I was then very disappointed when you weren't able to properly discuss those issues, but just blustered on.

Let's see what you are on about.

What crap you go on with. Here you are with over 150 years of instability and falsification of what was once called evidence...down the dunny and you want to have a shot at Sanford.

You call it "crap", but you can't come up with an argument as to why it is "crap" that bears even cursory inspection. Hence I feel that you are proving my point, that my criticism of you is entirely justified by the evidence of what you post here.

Actually, I both summarised and posted a link to a sophisticated argument against Sanford. I note that you have not been able to counter this argument in any way, and once again, you bluster when you don't have anything to back up your claims.

In fact mutations generally bring about deleterious effects. Hence your evolutionary scientists support Sanford but they do not have the guts to say so.

Nobody is denying that mutations generally bring about deleterious effects. However, as shown by the work of Kimura, models of evolution with natural selection can produce evolution at far higher speed than is believed to happen in the real world, even if most mutations are deleterious. Sanford's simulation is based around assumptions concerning mutations that can be shown to be faulty, e.g. how many beneficial mutations occur that are strong enough to be selected for, and also the cumulative effect of many small deleterious mutations being ignored. I posted this some time ago, you have not been able to counter it.

No computer simulation can get all details right, but Kimura's work shows that the results of simulation depend greatly on fine details of the distribution of the worth of mutations (let alone cumulative and combinatorial effects). Hence the obvious conclusion is that no conclusion as to the change of complexity over time can be taken from that work. Note carefully that I not only say that Sanford's conclusions are unreliable, I say why Sanford's conclusions are unreliable.

Where are the evolutionary scientists that support Sanford? Once again you make blustering statements, but don't back them up. Not a single name, not a single reference. I'm sure you can find one or two, but is there any sign of a consensus supporting Sanford's claims? If so, where is this evidence?

Indeed Sanfords work is just as credible as any of the flavour of the months you can produce. Many scientists support his work and they know more than you.

Uncommon Descent | Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book

Who are these scientists, and are they able to counter the very valid criticisms of Sanford's work that I have posted already? How do you think posting a link a review of Sanford's book helps answer these criticisms. Again, you prove my point. You can't counter these criticisms because you don't understand them. So, you just post links with blustering language.

Indeed this research below states that most clades showed a bias towards DECREASING complexity just as Sanford stated.

And can you explain how vestigial molecular pathways support a .... wait for it .... overall decreasing complexity in clades.

Are there a significant number of clades where there is decreasing complexity from ancestor to descendent species? Can you show that these are the rule, rather than the exception?

The point you missed is that your researchers actually see nothing. That is the fact. What they see is what an algorithm spits out.

Don't forget these boofheads of yours thought non coding DNA was junk. That was until it was found to be functional.

Except that most junk DNA is still .... junk. Do you have a reference where it's been found that junk DNA doesn't exist and that it ALL has function? Or is it just the case that there has been some refinement of our understanding of the human genome so that we have a more accurate understanding of exactly which DNA is junk, and which isn't?

Some scientists have suggested that loss of the vitamin C biosynthesis pathway may have played a role in the theory of rapid evolutionary changes, leading to hominids and the emergence of human beings

Have you actually read the papers that you are quoting? Can you explain how this paper supports your claims about decreasing complexity in clades when it talks about the emergence of the most sophisticated (arguable - but I'm including intellect as an important factor) species on this planet - us. Are you going to say that we show decreased complexity overall compared to a common ancestors of all apes (including us)?

If not - then this is exactly what I am talking about. You Astrid litter your posts with references and quotes. You don't explain how these support your arguments, and looking at them very carefully they appear to argue quite strongly against your own claims. This is exactly what I criticised, and after this post of yours, I feel even more justified in that criticism.

The lack of ability to synthesise Vitamin C can be described as a very minor "step back". But whether or not we have overall decreasing complexity depends on whether or not the number of steps forward is greater or less than the number of steps back. What distinguishes us most from other members of Hominoidae is not our greater ability to synthesise our own nutrients, but our greater intellectual powers.

Anyway, at the top you ask:

Who on earth do you think you are to make such allegations about me.

It doesn't matter who I am. What matters is whether or not my criticisms of your argument and the logic behind your arguments (or lack of it) are valid. I don't just say that I believe that your argument style is poor because I'm me and I say so. I give a description of what I feel is wrong with your posts and arguments. And given your post above where you repeat all the same logical errors, and are unable to even discuss why Sanford's results cannot be taken seriously, it looks as if my description is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, Astrid!

Looks to me like you have picked yourself up a critic or two!

Good going!

 

[Astridhere]

rikerjoe I just love it when you give up in frustration.
.

When it comes down to it the majority of you evos have no clue about this science, or rather lack of it, you try to support.

Indohyus

Mouse deer

Indohyus poofing into a whale is ridiculous. Your evo researchers would have to be blind to not see the close similarity it has to a mouse deer.

You have been sucked in badly.

 

[Astridhere]

Hey, Astrid!

Looks to me like you have picked yourself up a critic or two!

Good going!

Yep ...and I love it, but none I cannot deal with.

How are you going AV? Is anyone giving you a hard time?