Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

The computer models mapping gene sequences are not even close to complete nor do they 'more than make up for' supposed missing links. I'm not a 'creationist' and agree with many aspects of the theory of evolution but I think you're the one who's putting too much faith into holy books—or is it PowerPoint slides on YouTube?

Only a creationist would make such ignorant claims.

You are of course completely wrong. You have no explanation for the fact that the evidence only supports the theory of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

only demonstrates that you understand neither the scientific method or evidence.

thanks for the compliment.

 

[xianghua]

Nah, not until you are honest enough to own up to one of the many mistakes of yours that have been corrected. I am ready with one as soon as you do. But if a person continually is corrected and merely repeats the same errors he is in no place to make any demands at all.

Can you be honest?

ok. do you think that a robot that made from organic components and have a self replicating system is evidence for design or a natural process?

 

[xianghua]

Phenotypic variation driven by selective pressures is an example of evolution. So yes.

so even if humans and other animals created by a designer and not evolved from a common descent- then evolution is still true according to this criteria.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The computer models mapping gene sequences are not even close to complete nor do they 'more than make up for' supposed missing links. I'm not a 'creationist' and agree with many aspects of the theory of evolution but I think you're the one who's putting too much faith into holy books—or is it PowerPoint slides on YouTube?

The frustrating thing about the arguments against the existence of transitional fossils (of which there are many) is like someone saying "there is no number between 0 and 1." And when shown 0.5 they say there is no number between 0 and 0.5. Repeat with 0.25, and on and on and on.

There are a number of transitional forms. Both in the fossil record and in the biochemical record. Why does this issue still come up?

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

moving to Creation Evolution Forum

 

[Subduction Zone]

thanks for the compliment.

It was an observation. Though since you do not even understand the basics of science why don't you try to learn? Your ignorance of the sciences cause you to make terrible error after terrible error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so even if humans and other animals created by a designer and not evolved from a common descent- then evolution is still true according to this criteria.

Um no, the problem for you is that the evidence clearly shows that life is the product of evolution. You need to find evidence for ID if you want to claim that it is real. The problem on your side is that there is no evidence for that nonsense by definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok. do you think that a robot that mamde from organic components and have a self replicating system is evidence for design or a natural process?

Of course not.

Did you even read your own post? In it you told us why this robot is not evidence for design.

 

[xianghua]

We are far used to the countless dishonest creationists that someone that is reasonable, and I am not yet saying that you are, may be treated in the same way as the dishonest ones.

But let's go over the points, and why we know that life is the product of evolution.

A key concept to understanding evolution is the Nested Hierarchy. Just as you can trace back in your own lineage to ever greater groups, such as your immediate family that you grew up with, the family that you grew up with and your cousins. The family that you grew up with and your cousins cousins. You will keep finding an ever increasing group.

We can see the same thing in evolution. You can trace it either way. Starting at the first life source and moving on down or starting with one species and moving up. Hopefully this gif posts. If you note there is an acquired trait and everything in the same clade (a group of descendants) will have this same trait:

Yeah! I can see that it works. That is just one list of nested hierarchies. There are several independent ones. And they go hand in hand with the same phylogenetic trees. This is thought to be much stronger evidence than the fossil record alone, but the fossil record also makes such a phylogenetic tree.

If evolution was not the answer the trees should not match. Yet we see them for DNA, the fossil record, ERV's. morphology, and more.

If you want to know why and can come across as being reasonable people will be polite to you. Lately there has been an overdose of people that refuse to understand and blame those on the evolution side for their own recalcitrance.

thanks for this diagram. what about diagrams that doesnt fit with this hierarchy, like this one?:

Figure4

Retroviruses, the Placenta, and the Genomic Junk Drawer

the syncytin gene was found in different groups of animals without an hierarchy. so we indeed found examples of non hierarchy. and if an hierarchy suppose to be evidence for evolution then non hierarchy is evidence against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

thanks for this diagram. what about diagrams that doesnt fit with this hierarchy, like this one?:

Figure4

Retroviruses, the Placenta, and the Genomic Junk Drawer

so we indeed found examples of non hierarchy. and if an hierarchy suppose to be evidence for evolution then non hierarchy is evidence against it.

You did not properly embed your image. I can't see how that one disagrees with the one that I posted at all. Please explain how this does not fit within the one that I posted:

 

[xianghua]

Of course not.

Did you even read your own post? In it you told us why this robot is not evidence for design.

so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system. ok. great claim need a great evidence. do you have such an evidence? so far you gave the nested hierarchy claim. but as you can see above, we have found evidence against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system. ok. great claim need a great evidence. do you have such an evidence? so far you gave the nested hierarchy claim. but as you can see above, we have found evidence against it.

Of course not. Do you still not see our error?

You obviously do not understand the concept of "logic" either.

And no, you did not find any evidence against nested hierarchies. You keep making claims that only underscore your lack of education. If you want to debate you need to learn the basics of science. And logic.

 

[xianghua]

You did not properly embed your image. I can't see how that one disagrees with the one that I posted at all. Please explain how this does not fit within the one that I posted:

take a look at the purple triangles. they appear in several groups of species but not in the species between them (for instance in a cow and a cat but not in a dolphin). this is clearly non hierarchy. so how evolutionists solve this non hierarchy? by claiming that those genes evolved independently at least several times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

take a look at the purple triangles. they appear in several groups of species but not in the species between them (for instance in a cow and a cat but not in a dolphin). this is clearly non hierarchy. so how evolutionists solve this non hierarchy? by claiming that those genes evolved independently at least several times.

Oh my! Read the article. Those are different capture events. There are many different ERV's in our genome. They were pointing out some key examples. ERV's form the same nested hierarchy by the way.

If you don't understand what you are doing you can only make yourself look bad, as you just did right there. I was really confused about how that image supported your claim and now I can see that it does not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, your "robot" example always fails because you use the word "built". We humans can recognize things that are built. Like a clock built out of wood:

A clock built out of wood is no more evidence for "design" than a regular clock is.

 

[quatona]

ok. do you think that a robot that made from organic components and have a self replicating system is evidence for design or a natural process?

You are describing an animal, not a robot.

 

[xianghua]

Oh my! Read the article. Those are different capture events.

of course that they are different. even the same gene in both human and chimp is different. the problem here is that the same gene (with it's variations) found in different groups without any nested hierarchy. as we can predict under the design scenario.

If you don't understand what you are doing you can only make yourself look bad,

so far it's seems that it's only apply to you.

 

[xianghua]

By the way, your "robot" example always fails because you use the word "built". We humans can recognize things that are built.

you already said that a robot that made from organic components isnt evidence for design. i have nothing to say about that "logic".

 

[xianghua]

You are describing an animal, not a robot.

you call it animal because its made from organic components and have a replication system? if so a self replicating watch that made from a wood isnt a watch too.