Nothing changes in this forum.

[bhsmte]

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."

Understanding the evidence and being psychologically capable of accepting it, are two different things.

IMO, a lot of creationists realize the evidence is overwhelming, but it is too painful to acknowledge, so they rely on defense mechanisms to protect their belief.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Especially those that have actually admitted to being ignorant of the science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

But isn't it the doctor's duty to persuade them? It's no different than teachers failing to educate our kids isn't it, after all the teachers presented the 'knowledge'? We are allowing ourselves to fail in our health and our education. As a result we are failing in many other ways, ways that depend on sound health and a good education. Strange.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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)?

100 percent is 'math'.

 

[Albion]

Understanding the evidence and being psychologically capable of accepting it, are two different things.

IMO, a lot of creationists realize the evidence is overwhelming, but it is too painful to acknowledge, so they rely on defense mechanisms to protect their belief.

As with many other things in life, we think in terms of two opposing sets of facts or opinions when, in reality, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

These are 'ancestors' that are already very complex, so they have already 'evolved'. The evolutionary 'tree' has to start with a single life form; the first one.

 

[bhsmte]

As with many other things in life, we think in terms of two opposing sets of facts or opinions when, in reality, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.

In some cases, yes, but not in all.

IMO, the truth is more likely to be, where most of the verifiable evidence leads.

 

[bhsmte]

But isn't it the doctor's duty to persuade them? It's no different than teachers failing to educate our kids isn't it, after all the teachers presented the 'knowledge'? We are allowing ourselves to fail in our health and our education. As a result we are failing in many other ways, ways that depend on sound health and a good education. Strange.

Sure, just as it is the pastors duty, to persuade his congregation, to live life in a certain way. Does his congregation always listen and act on the same? You can talk to people until you are blue in the face, but they have to have the capacity to absorb information and be self motivated to act on it.

 

[Albion]

In some cases, yes, but not in all.

IMO, the truth is more likely to be, where most of the verifiable evidence leads.

Then I will rephrase. IN THIS CASE, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle (which I suspect is what most people believe, even when they are classified by others as being at one extreme or the other).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure, just as it is the pastors duty, to persuade his congregation, to live life in a certain way. Does his congregation always listen and act on the same? You can talk to people until you are blue in the face, but they have to have the capacity to absorb information and be self motivated to act on it.

We have laws that punish bad behavior. Maybe we should have laws that promote good behavior.

 

[bhsmte]

We have laws that punish bad behavior. Maybe we should have laws that promote good behavior.

Really?

What laws exist for having little empathy for people (unless they agree with you) and for lying to people in everyday life, treating them poorly, etc?

What laws do we have for people who refuse to exercise, eat the proper foods, follow the physicians instructions to improve their health?

Please share those laws.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

But isn't it the doctor's duty to persuade them? It's no different than teachers failing to educate our kids isn't it, after all the teachers presented the 'knowledge'? We are allowing ourselves to fail in our health and our education. As a result we are failing in many other ways, ways that depend on sound health and a good education. Strange.

It is ultimately the student's duty to work hard and study the materials and concepts given by the teacher. The teacher can only guide.
Also, what is better motivation for losing weight (for an obese person) than saying 'you have a high chance to die'.

We have laws that punish bad behavior. Maybe we should have laws that promote good behavior.

We can't have laws for that because it really is the person's choice to behave as they want. Otherwise, everyone (even you) would end up in jail for stuff like lying and eating fast food two times a week.
Besides, the government (at least mine does) has schemes which give promote better behaviour.

 

[Job 33:6]

Penguins "fly" through the water.

If penguins "fly" through water, then what does an ostrich or a kiwi do?

 

[Job 33:6]

talk about a useless wing, this must be one of those "half" animals that young earthers keep talking about ^

 

[Job 33:6]

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

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

haha, this is great. So first the birds with half wings would be at a disadvantage and would all die, but then when we actually look at birds with half wings, they are doing just fine.

So which is it?

The proof is in the pudding, the birds with half wings are doing fine, so the original statement about birds with half wings, is false. Unless you were talking about other limbs that are special to birds, that are not wings. Even though what makes birds special, are their wings.

One has to wonder why God would design an animal with wings that couldnt actually use them to fly. Wait what? You mean there are other practical uses for wings aside from flying and that half wings can actually benefit a species? No way...this is just evolutionist crazy talk now...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really?

What laws exist for having little empathy for people (unless they agree with you) and for lying to people in everyday life, treating them poorly, etc?

What laws do we have for people who refuse to exercise, eat the proper foods, follow the physicians instructions to improve their health?

Please share those laws.

I didn't say we had such laws, I said maybe we should have such laws. Also I didn't allude to any specific laws. I said laws that promote the desired result.

However we could raise the conversation to the spiritual level, whereby people would understand (or at least be in formed) that their problems usually stem from broken natural laws; laws that transcend the laws of physics.

 

[Job 33:6]

my apologies @OldWiseGuy, looks like @Chisel was responsible for the above comment.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't say we had such laws, I said maybe we should have such laws. Also I didn't allude to any specific laws. I said laws that promote the desired result.

However we could raise the conversation to the spiritual level, whereby people would understand (or at least be in formed) that their problems usually stem from broken natural laws; laws that transcend the laws of physics.

Ok, make your proposal for these specific laws and what the punishment should be and how we determine the laws are broken.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then I will rephrase. IN THIS CASE, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle (which I suspect is what most people believe, even when they are classified by others as being at one extreme or the other).

Why would that be the case?

 

[Kenny'sID]

ould you be able to understand the evidence?

Your posting history says... NOPE.

And it seems the posting history of everyone I ask for proof says nope, there is no such thing as proof, science doesn't show proof, when that is exactly what science does. I can't understand it if they won't preset it. However, I'm going to give you a shot at it.

Explain it to me. Take your first section there, that is assuming it's evidence that shows evolution is a fact, and explain exactly what is going on, you know so a 7 yr old can understand it. Then sum up why/how that makes evolution a fact.

Fair enough? I'm assuming you understand it well enough that shouldn't be a problem for you.