Nothing changes in this forum.

bhsmte said:

LOL

Click to expand...

Has a doctor ever revealed to you the secrets of health? (It must be a secret as there are so few truly healthy people.)

OldWiseGuy said:

Has a doctor ever revealed to you the secrets of health? (It must be a secret as there are so few truly healthy people.)

Click to expand...

We have an abundance of knowledge of how people should behave to enhance their health. The one variable that comes into play, that has to come from within each person, is the personal motivation to behave in the proper way.

Speedwell said:

Why should we pursuade you? It's enough that we tell you. What you do with the information is up to you. I think most evolutionists who come to this forum are satisfied to dispel the misinformation (and sometimes outright lies) promoted by creationists about the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Creationists, as far as I have observed, simply argue that the ToE is an unproven theory, whereas you and others argue that it is a proven fact. The fact is that evolution is not an unbroken chain of facts. There are links missing, and there are arguments among scientists about other links.

"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

bhsmte said:

We have an abundance of knowledge of how people should behave to enhance their health. The one variable that comes into play, that has to come from within each person, is the personal motivation to behave in the proper way.

Click to expand...

You may have such knowledge, but do "they"?

OldWiseGuy said:

You may have such knowledge, but do "they"?

Click to expand...

In today's world, docs tell patients what they should or should not be doing and credible sources on the web will confirm the same. If they don't listen, that is up to them.

bhsmte said:

In today's world, docs tell patients what they should or should not be doing and credible sources on the web will confirm the same. If they don't listen, that is up to them.

Click to expand...

So there's no compelling reason for doctors to steer the nation to better health? I thought that poor health was a big concern here (healthcare costs, access, etc.) Oh wait, better health never enters that conversation, only more money for doctors.

Kenny'sID said:

Now wait a second, I thought we said science was false?

Some Atheists will say/use whatever works for them at the moment, even if it means back peddling and hoping no one notices.

Click to expand...

The statement was that some creationists make the claim that science is false. Other equally nonsensical statements have been made by other creationists. The contradictions are from the school of creationists, not the statements from Phred.

I do find it surprising that you have never noticed accusations as to the falsehoods of science. May I count on a retraction and an apology for Phred if I produce some examples?

OldWiseGuy said:

The method of propulsion is similar.

Click to expand...

Swimming is not flying and flying is not swimming.

But credit where credit is due...
You win the olympic gold medal for these mental gymnastics.

OldWiseGuy said:

Picture the human condition as three realms,

Top realm: Extreme health and vitality.

Middle realm: Not extremely healthy but not sick at the moment.

Bottom realm: Sickness.

Modern medicine is not concerned with the top realm, although they know how people can attain it.

Recall the most famous line from "The Last King of Scotland":

"I know you told me....but you did not persuade me."

Click to expand...

LOL is the best answer to this bs.
Medical science does know the secret to the top realm, be active, hygienic and eat healthy. I'm sure everyone knows this secret. I laughed a little when I read this.

OldWiseGuy said:

Penguins "fly" through the water.

Click to expand...

I also laughed when I saw this.
Do earthworms fly through the ground?
When I go swimming, am I flying through the water?

OldWiseGuy said:

I don't think the ostrich was designed to fly in the first place.

Click to expand...

LOL!

I repeat: it's a bird. It has wings. It does not fly.

So, looking at the comment to which I was actually responding:

Chisel said:

Birds with half as limbs would put themselves in a disadvantage running from predators, so the species would die.

Click to expand...

...clearly that comment is false. We have extant examples of birds with wings that can't fly. They don't seem to have any particular problem to survive.

Phred said:

I'm sure in another ten years things in here will be exactly the same.

Click to expand...

And I am betting that the majority of creationists will still be using the exact same arguments they are now.

Another forum I had been active on back in the late 1990s is still around. I stopped participating on it around 1999. I went back just a couple of weeks ago to see if it was still active, and wouldn't you know it, some of the same creationists were still active there, literally still posting and re-posting the exact same garbage they had posted back in the 90s and been HUMILIATED on repeatedly. Almost 20 years later, still using the same claims, the same links (those that are still active, anyway), etc.

I don't understand that mindset.

OldWiseGuy said:

So there's no compelling reason for doctors to steer the nation to better health? I thought that poor health was a big concern here (healthcare costs, access, etc.) Oh wait, better health never enters that conversation, only more money for doctors.

Click to expand...

Putting words in my mouth?

Any person, who regularly goes to their physician for periodic physicals/checkups, will receive information on how their overall health is checking out:

-are they overweight and need to lose fat
-what is their cholesterol and does diet need to change
-how do their lab tests look, regarding blood chemistry
-what is their blood pressure and is being overweight, diet high in salt impacting
-do they smoke
-how much physical activity do they get
-are they under a lot of stress and what should they do about it

These are all the major points a physical will reveal and the physician will discuss with each patient. Some patients are motivated to listen, others are not.

You can fill people with all sorts of knowledge of how they should behave, but it is up to them at the end of the day to change behaviors. Sort of like Christians, who know the 10 commandments, yet don't always follow them. And not unlike biblical creationists, who have access to scientific knowledge and evidence, but choose to deny.

OldWiseGuy said:

Creationists, as far as I have observed, simply argue that the ToE is an unproven theory, whereas you and others argue that it is a proven fact. The fact is that evolution is not an unbroken chain of facts. There are links missing, and there are arguments among scientists about other links.

"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

Click to expand...

You're confusing evolutionary history with evolution theory as well as with the facts of evolution.

But, I don't expect someone who argues against evolution to not be confused as to what it really is all about.

OldWiseGuy said:

Science can't abandon the ToE; it's "their baby". Besides they paid good money to study it. To not believe it would make a mockery of their education.

Click to expand...

Projection is a funny thing.

One thing that will never change - creationists with totally irrelevant backgrounds will pretend to understand evolution better than anyone else, even when it is trivial to demonstrate how little they actually understand.

And here all this time I thought hubris and pride were antithetical to Christian values...

OldWiseGuy said:

One of the problems creationists have in addressing evolution is that they have a hard time overcoming their incredulity about the theory.

Click to expand...

Wow....

OldWiseGuy said:

That's the only way we could have come into existence.

Odds of creation: 100 percent.
Odds of evolution: Too small to calculate.

Doesn't science believe that the first life form appeared 'suddenly'?

Click to expand...

LOL!

Let us see your calculation on the certainty of creation.

Further, let us see the demonstration that the creator had to have been the Hebrew tribal deity Jehovah, and not, say, the Titans.

Chisel said:

Investigate.
DNA is impossible to form through evolution.

It is a fairytale for grown ups.

Click to expand...

Looks like YOU need to INVESTIGATE.

Looks to me like the real fairy tale is blindly accepting the creation story written by middle eastern numerologists - pray tell HOW, exactly, did Jehovah turn silicates into organic molecules?

Kenny'sID said:

Can you prove evolution?

Click to expand...

Would you be able to understand the evidence?

Your posting history says... NOPE.

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

OldWiseGuy said:

What is the "common ancestor"?

Click to expand...

Are you asking for what a common ancestor is?

Here, Wikipedia to the rescue: Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia

Also, Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

OldWiseGuy said:

Creationists, as far as I have observed, simply argue that the ToE is an unproven theory,

Click to expand...

Thanks for unwittingly demonstrating the lack of science education among creationists.

Wait - aren't you the guy that declared that creation is a 100% certainty and evolution's veracity is too small to calculate (an assertion that was accompanied by no math at all)?