Macroevolution:

[dmmesdale]

In a nutshell, the incorporation of phylogenetic data in comparing genomes allows researchers to make more informed comparisons of genomes and better identify functional regions. In effect, they are applying the data related to estimated neutral divergence of species based on time to better distinguish regions that show evidence of conservation or accelerated divergence.

Yes, it tends to get a bit technical. Science can be like that. The solution is to spend some time learning about the subject and to gain some understanding.

So you are blaming the audience for your failures. It is up to you to make your positive case.

I literally gave you a link which even explains how to read a phylogenetic tree (i.e. what those numbers mean).

Here it is again: How to read a phylogenetic tree | epidemic

The link is about viruses, not animals. Your previous (#28) was about animals identified on the right side and their ancestors identified by numbers on the left. You are using two different charts.

 

[Non sequitur]

Pretend that Garrigan is a doctor and Idi Amin is a patient wanting health advice.

But You Did Not Persuade Me

#notalldoctorsthough

 

[pitabread]

So you are blaming the audience for your failures. It is up to you to make your positive case.

I generally assume that for these discussions there is a baseline of scientific knowledge coming in. If someone is trying to argue that phylogenetic relationships between organisms is 'faith' or 'visual myth' or whatever else, but then turn around and claim ignorance of the subject matter the minute they are presented with real science, then who is really at fault there?

If ignorance is preferable for you, then by all means have at it. It doesn't seem an enviable position, however.

The link is about viruses, not animals.

The link is about reading a phylogenetic tree. That particular page uses a fictional "virus" based tree as an illustration, nothing more. The principles, however, are the same regardless of what the tree is about.

Learn the principles.

 

[driewerf]

It says theory not law of evolution , i believe only in proven things .

Do you believe in the Valence Scale Electron Pair Repulsion theory?
Do you believe in the Theory of General Relativity?
Do you believe in the Theory of Plate Tectonics?

For these are all theories, and generaly accepted.

 

[dmmesdale]

I generally assume that for these discussions there is an assumption of a baseline of scientific knowledge coming in.

If you cannot make your case to one person then how would you expect to make a case to 20 or 30 persons?

If someone is trying to argue that phylogenetic relationships between organisms is 'faith' or 'visual myth' or whatever else, but then turn around and claim ignorance of the subject matter the minute they are presented with real science, then who is really at fault there?

You are. Let's start with what we do understand and go from there. Your initial had a tree with humans and chimps on the right side connected to a supposed common ancestor identified by number to the left. That is an assumption based on two possibles. 1) Your tree assumes a common ancestor and the other 2) would be no common ancestor. Not connected to the theoretical creature. You have not made a convincing case for a common ancestor when you cannot even identify the ancestor which connects. Everyone knows humans and chimps have a lot in common based on body designs and a lot of differences. More likely being they are two distinct types as opposed to being connected by a mythical extinct creature having no more factual basis then winged Pegasus. A 19th-century inference when they were bleeding people as remedies and doing Phrenology. Was little men in sperm still into the 19th-century?

The link is about reading a phylogenetic tree. That particular page uses a fictional "virus" based tree as an illustration, nothing more. The principles, however, are the same regardless of what the tree is about. Learn the principles.

What principals? Obfuscation? What we do know is you don't even know the common ancestor. That is a fact. Another fact, the creature is not identified. Instead, we have a number.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

#notalldoctorsthough

#toofewtomatter

 

[pitabread]

If you cannot make your case to one person then how would you expect to make a case to 20 or 30 persons?

You asked for applications of common descent, I gave you some. Whether or not you choose to accept them or not is up to you. But crying ignorance of science doesn't make the science go away.

You are. Let's start with what we do understand and go from there. Your initial had a tree with humans and chimps on the right side connected to a supposed common ancestor identified by number to the left.

Yes, let's start with the understanding part.

First of all, the numbers have nothing to do with identification of any creatures. Again, this is what the numbers in that particular tree mean: "Substitutions per 100 bp are given for each branch, and branches with ≥ 10 substitutions are colored red, while blue indicates < 10 substitutions. " - A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals

Now do you understand what that means or do you need more explanation?

What principals? Obfuscation? What we do know is you don't even know the common ancestor. That is a fact. Another fact, the creature is not identified. Instead, we have a number.

You're blatantly misinterpreting a phylogenetic tree, so I'm trying to point you to material to better understand it. Instead of getting defensive, perhaps you should just take the time to try to learn? It will make this a whole lot easier, I promise.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The reason most people (who) don't believe in evolution is that they don't think we can get here from there through 'natural' processes. It's just too......fantastic.

 

[pitabread]

The reason most people (who) don't believe in evolution is that they don't think we can get here from there through 'natural' processes. It's just too......fantastic.

And a supernatural deity magically poofing creatures into existence is somehow less "fantastic"?

 

[lesliedellow]

You're blatantly misinterpreting a phylogenetic tree, so I'm trying to point you to material to better understand it. Instead of getting defensive, perhaps you should just take the time to try to learn? It will make this a whole lot easier, I promise.

Why does anybody waste time on creationists, who know what they want to believe, and reality can go to hell in a handcart if it doesn't agree with what they want to believe?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And a supernatural deity magically poofing creatures into existence is somehow less "fantastic"?

Together with other beliefs it's much more appealing; warm and fuzzy.

 

[pitabread]

As a full meal it's much more appealing; warm and fuzzy.

This kinda reinforces my own view that a lot of theological beliefs are based on emotional attachment as opposed cold, logical thinking.

 

[lesliedellow]

Taken together it's much more appealing; warm and fuzzy.

Yeah precisely. At least one creationist has come clean, and admitted that he has no interest in what is real, so long as he can hang on to his warm and fuzzy feeling.

 

[Non sequitur]

#toofewtomatter

#nofearbutfearitself

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This kinda reinforces my own view that a lot of theological beliefs are based on emotional attachment as opposed cold, logical thinking.

The death penalty is cold, logical thinking that many Christians support. Yet it is the cold, logical thinking atheists that fight against it the hardest. Curious. In fact if you examine the lives of both groups you might find cold, logical thinking more prevalent in Christian thinking. There is nothing illogical about God's way of life or way of thinking.

 

[pitabread]

In fact if you examine the lives of both groups you might find cold, logical thinking more prevalent in Christian thinking.

Not in my experience. I fact, most conversion stories I read tend to be heavily steeped in emotional situations.

There is nothing illogical about God's way of life or way of thinking.

Christian theology is fundamentally illogical to me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah precisely. At least one creationist has come clean, and admitted that he has no interest in what is real, so long as he can hang on to his warm and fuzzy feeling.

I guess you gotta look at how it all shakes out. If your belief system works for you it's all good. Godless science is beneficial to me, a believer; and my beliefs are beneficial to a godless society.

It's a dance, but who is leading?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not in my experience. I fact, most conversion stories I read tend to be heavily steeped in emotional situations.



Christian theology is fundamentally illogical to me.

Evolution is a belief. Religion is a belief.
Between the two religion is the most useful for the average person, as well as the most needed worldwide.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is a belief. Religion is a belief.
Between the two religion is the most useful for the average person, as well as the most needed worldwide.

Except that evolution is a science with real-world application. There's no dichotomy here.

 

[bhsmte]

The reason most people (who) don't believe in evolution is that they don't think we can get here from there through 'natural' processes. It's just too......fantastic.

More fantastic than some super natural being going; poof, magic?

You know, many thought we could never get to the moon either and the thought of doing so was too fantastic to consider real. The reality is; science can figure out stuff, where these things that seem fantastic to some, make sense.