Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

 

[Split Rock]

The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

This is a good point. Creationists like to pick at this particular fossil or that particular drawing of embryos made by Ernst Haeckel. They do not appreciate that the preponderance of the evidence leads to one conclusion... Common Descent.

 

[uke2se]

The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

It's good that this got its own thread. This is something that absolutely destroys almost all of the "arguments" creationists put forth.

 

[sbvera13]

I notice no creationists have commented yet. This is what usually happens when we discuss abstract ideals rather then inflammatory talking points.

 

[juvenissun]

The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.

There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.

Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.

I don't necessary agree with your radiometric dating example. You do not know what you are talking about. But, that is a minor issue.

Do you know the faith of Christianity also has MILOE? I think it is the BEST example of MILOE ever. It is too bad that you know little about it. Otherwise, you will be very very impressed.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I don't necessary agree with your radiometric dating example. You do not know what you are talking about. But, that is a minor issue.

Do you know the faith of Christianity also has MILOE? I think it is the BEST example of MILOE ever. It is too bad that you know little about it. Otherwise, you will be very very impressed.

I know that creationism is little more than denialism but could you give a DETAILED response instead of just vaguely stating an opposing position which was known before you posted?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Do you know the faith of Christianity also has MILOE? I think it is the BEST example of MILOE ever. It is too bad that you know little about it. Otherwise, you will be very very impressed.

Maybe you should start a thread on it then. I would love to be very very impressed.

 

[anagnostic]

I am yet to see a reply from a Creationist that stays focused on the science, and gives a respectful and reasoned response, or without resorting to ridicule of their opponent.

In the approximately 300 years since the scientific revolution what advances has either religion or science made in our understanding of the universe, and our ability to make use (for better or worse) of nature for our benefit?

Why do Creationists rubbish scientists? This really puzzles me.

Can I have a respectful and rational answer? If not, please don't reply.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Do you know the faith of Christianity also has MILOE? I think it is the BEST example of MILOE ever. It is too bad that you know little about it. Otherwise, you will be very very impressed.

Just a couple little points of order:

1) The "M" stands for "Multiple", and the "E" stands for "Evidence"... christianity has neither.

2) Even if we were to reduce the standard to REMOTELY apply to christianity... by that same standard, there would be far more "MILOE" for the existance of aliens and their fascination with probes.

 

[Sophophile]

I am yet to see a reply from a Creationist that stays focused on the science, and gives a respectful and reasoned response, or without resorting to ridicule of their opponent.

Actually, this is pretty uncommon on the evolutionist side too.

S.

 

[iremouth]

I don't necessary agree with your radiometric dating example. You do not know what you are talking about. But, that is a minor issue.

Would you like to tell us why it's wrong? you obviously know a lot about the subject to be able to just dismiss it off hand, I for one would like to be enlightened, please try and simplify it as much as you can.

 

[Baggins]

Do you know the faith of Christianity also has MILOE? I think it is the BEST example of MILOE ever. It is too bad that you know little about it. .

Too bad you don't understand what the words multiple and independent mean.

Christianity has one piece of non-independent evidence - the New Testement and nothing else.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

How does a person EVER expect to see MILoE from the perspective of creationism if their head is in the ToE box and that is ALL they can see. They not only cannot get out of the box , they wont. Here is an example. "All hail tiktaalik". Every time you here a ToE believer speak of this all you hear is the biased, indoctinated head in the ToE box explanations. Just check out ANY site that evo's speak of it. It is like a god to them. They post a 370 million year old stamp on it because of where it was found and where its suppose to fit in their fairy tale like tree. 370 million years old, that in itself is ridiculous. But if your head is in the ToE box you accept it without question. Just like EVERY other so called transitional fossil , tiktaalik is no different. It is NOT empirical proof other than a complete creature like ALL others.
Here are a few things on tiktaalik that you will NEVER hear a evo with their head in the box say about it.
As I was skimming through the list of “transitional” fossils, I found that the Tiktaalik (a fossil fish) was listed as an intermediate form. This particular specimen, lately, has become a very popular example of an intermediate from sea to land because of it’s fins. The problem with this claim, it turns out, is that the its fins are not connected to the main skeleton and therefore could not have supported it’s weight on land. Although Darwinists hypothesize that they could have been used to prop itself up on a water bed, they had similar hopes for the Caelocanth which turned out to be totally wrong.
It doesn’t help that it has been admitted, even by those that believe it’s a transitional form, that the “quality of the specimen was poor.Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the specimen’s quality is poor, then isn’t it presumptuous to claim it is an intermediate form?

It only takes these two statements to verify what I have been saying all along, Biased and indocrinated to accpet it for what they assume it is and ignore data that might say otherwise. Already placed in the fairy tale tree.

Curiously, the radial bones of Panderichthys are more finger-like than those of Tiktaalik.
One possibility, Alhberg said, is that finger development took a step backward with Tiktaalik, and that Tiktaalik's fins represented an evolutionary return to a more primitive form.
Many are convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones.Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."
The structures are so peculiar, they might just be fragments of damaged bone.
It seems anything goes with evo's, anything to make it fit in that ToE box. So really now, sak yourselfs WHY? WHY? should we believe ANYTHING you pull out of your ToE box and try and feed it to us. The fossil is in rough shape yet you can boast of such great claims as if matter of fact. Get your heads out of the box. Put some real empirical evidence on the table. I (we) have heard ALL your assumptions, speculations and probablies. and dont buy it.

 

[Split Rock]

How many Multiple Personalities gave the green light to Thalidomide?

(Please answer with a number, not treeware, or I'm not interested.)

I think it was either the same number of indulgences that were sold, or the number of innocent people burned at the stake for "witchcraft."

 

[Split Rock]

Many are convinced that the digit-like structures in Panderichthys's fin are the equivalent of our fingers.
For one thing, they seem unusually flat for radial bones.Radials are generally cylindrical. When you look at [a] cross-section [of the digit], they're dumbbell-shaped."
The structures are so peculiar, they might just be fragments of damaged bone.

Too bad it isn't "just fragments of damaged bone," because then you might actualy have a case.

It seems anything goes with evo's, anything to make it fit in that ToE box. So really now, sak yourselfs WHY? WHY? should we believe ANYTHING you pull out of your ToE box and try and feed it to us. The fossil is in rough shape yet you can boast of such great claims as if matter of fact. Get your heads out of the box. Put some real empirical evidence on the table. I (we) have heard ALL your assumptions, speculations and probablies. and dont buy it.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

If fourteen genera of transitional fishapods aren't enough for you, then you can "Take A Hike." Why don't you tell us what "real empirical evidence" for a fish-tetrapod transitional would look like? Or maybe you should admit that no evidence would satisfy you.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Too bad it isn't "just fragments of damaged bone," because then you might actualy have a case.



If fourteen genera of transitional fishapods aren't enough for you, then you can "Take A Hike." Why don't you tell us what "real empirical evidence" for a fish-tetrapod transitional would look like? Or maybe you should admit that no evidence would satisfy you.

14 huh? According to who?Evo's? hahahahaahahahaaahaaha Every fossil is transitional...hahahahahahaahahahahaha..You guys have cried wolf to many times.
Explain to me the probability of scales turning into feathers. hahahahahaahahahaha Oh yah one person in here doesn't like probabilities. How about IMPOSSIBILITIES. You want to live in your fairy tale land, have at er. You are not gonna drag me in with your assumptions, speculations and biased indocrinated foolishness.

 

[gaara4158]

14 huh? According to who?Evo's? hahahahaahahahaaahaaha Every fossil is transitional...hahahahahahaahahahahaha..You guys have cried wolf to many times.
Explain to me the probability of scales turning into feathers. hahahahahaahahahaha Oh yah one person in here doesn't like probabilities. How about IMPOSSIBILITIES. You want to live in your fairy tale land, have at er. You are not gonna drag me in with your assumptions, speculations and biased indocrinated foolishness.

http://i.pbase.com/u26/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]inabag/upload/19509221.matt.jpg
HE'S GONE CRAZY!!

 

[Hespera]

Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.

Why is it wrong if what he says is true?If you ignore the over hysterical nature of his post,its pretty much correct...

 

[Hespera]

Well praisej, i see very little that he posts that would make it into the 'true" side of the ledger.

IF he cared to bring up one pint, and present it in a reasonable way, that could be discussed. A shotgun spray of nonsense and lololol and hahaha isnt worth writing in the first place let alone responding to it. As i learned.