On "analyzing" science that you don't understand

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We also observe that the genetic differences between species are exactly what we would expect if they descend from a common ancestor, and we note that no explanation other than common ancestry has ever been offered by anyone for these observations.

No! When we found similarities we interpreted them to mean common descent because we went in with the presupposed assumption of it (based on being convinced by earlier authorities that this is what the fossil record indicates). The fact that organisms that appear similar anatomically and physiologically share similar genes in similar locations does not imply common descent just similarity.

Yes we share the many in common (that express structurally and functionally) with apes and most with , that does not demonstrate lineage (progeny).

Appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum does not make it so. (I know where this genetic approach will go so I will wait patiently).
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No! When we found similarities we interpreted them to mean common descent because we went in with the presupposed assumption of it (based on being convinced by earlier authorities that this is what the fossil record indicates). The fact that organisms that appear similar anatomically and physiologically share similar genes in similar locations does not imply common descent just similarity.

Yes we share the many in common (that express structurally and functionally) with apes and most with , that does not demonstrate lineage (progeny).
Your response appears to have nothing to do with my post. I said nothing about sharing "similar genes in similar locations". I said the genetic differences between species look like what we would expect from common descent. More specifically, they look like a lot of accumulated mutations.

Since you understand this subject FAR, FAR better than I (a mere academic scientist) do, you presumably know this already. You must have a good, nonevolutionary explanation handy for the observed transition/transversion ratio between similar species, and the divergence at CpG sites, and the correlation between divergence and within-species diversity. So what is it?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's fine. You can believe whatever you like. But if you want to teach biblical creationism in the public schools, either bald-faced or covered by ID as a "wedge" for your theology, then you will have a different kind of discussion on your hands.

Creationism has no place in a science class but neither do hypotheses disguised as established fact.

They should be presented as what they are...possibilities ...such that IF common from apes is believed to be true THEN this is how we interpret or see this evidence. Also teach them that there are alternative explanations that some have for the same evidence (list their scientific accolades) and report their explanations as THEY explain their view and skip any mention of a God or god.

Teaching their minds how to think not what to think requires the arguments for and against any position to be examined (only then can they make an informed decision and reach an unbiased objective conclusion for themselves).

AGAIN LEAVE DISCUSSION OF GOD OR GODS OUT...
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
They should be presented as what they are...possibilities ...such that IF common from apes is believed to be true THEN this is how we interpret or see this evidence. Also teach them that there are alternative explanations that some have for the same evidence (list their scientific accolades) and report their explanations as THEY explain their view

What are these alternative explanations? Can you give some examples?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your response appears to have nothing to do with my post. I said nothing about sharing "similar genes in similar locations". I said the genetic differences between species look like what we would expect from common descent. More specifically, they look like a lot of accumulated mutations.

Since you understand this subject FAR, FAR better than I (a mere academic scientist) do, you presumably know this already. You must have a good, nonevolutionary explanation handy for the observed transition/transversion ratio between similar species, and the divergence at CpG sites, and the correlation between divergence and within-species diversity. So what is it?

That's a lot so lets start with the so called "observed Ti/Tv ratio...

First off my friend, I may or may not have any such FAR FAR greater understanding. And I never made such a claim, I merely offered an equally valid possibility as an interpretation of the same thing.

As for the ratio (which I am sure you know more) it firstly assumes common descent (so there is a built in bias already) and then at best it is only ESTIMATED...the ratio changes depending on the species compared, alleged CORRECTIONS are made for multiple alleged substitutions, and apparently there is a NEGATIVE CORRELATION between the estimates and sequence distance (where it should line up more succinctly). Plus in their COMPUTER SIMULATIONS (programmed by people already holding the belief) they needed to account and adjust for the Ti/Tv bias and in using both the pairwise correction method and the joint likelihood analysis (emphasis on correction and likelihood) they tended to overcorrect for the multiple alleged substitutions (which not all are by any means, but must be seen as such to make the data fit the theory instead of shape it) and failed ratio model in areas of low sequence divergence.

Now there is more, but this is enough to say that all this actually demonstrates is, that if an intelligent force (the scientist) tweaks the data (imposing design to the study) makes the necessary corrections and so on in such a way as to present the conclusion to support their already held view, they can make it work to that end.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for "the divergence at CpG sites" are speaking about the highly methylated areas or the lower methylated areas?

On the correlation between divergence and within-species diversity...

Divergence is predominately based on homological assumptions and the misinterpretation of allegedly shared genes and mutations and "within-species diversity" IS shown to be the result of speciation which actually only produces variety of the same organism, and shows no evidence of transmutation of one organism into another entirely different organism (and I challenge you to show an actual example from nature or from lab experiments designed to prove this).
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What are these alternative explanations? Can you give some examples?

Have you not been paying attention? The simplest alternative explanation example to share (and easiest to prove true or false) is the effect of speciation by natural selection and accumulated mutations. Yes speciation is really happening, BUT it cannot be used to demonstrate the change of one organism into an entirely different type of organism (as it is taught to be), BECAUSE all the evidence we have (which is much) only demonstrates the production of variety within the same organism.

Please address this and by all means show some EXAMPLES not just the default to failed genetic arguments such as ERVs and so on. If it is a fact (as it is taught to be) then this should be easy! I can certainly give examples which support my scientifically based interpretation (now do not go there, just defend YOUR position).
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Have you not been paying attention? The simplest alternative explanation example to share (and easiest to prove true or false) is the effect of speciation by natural selection and accumulated mutations. Yes speciation is really happening, BUT it cannot be used to demonstrate the change of one organism into an entirely different type of organism, BECAUSE all the evidence we have (which is much) only demonstrates the production of variety within the same organism.
But that is not an explanation--only an assertion that variation and selection are inadequate to produce change beyond speciation.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for the ratio (which I am sure you know more) it firstly assumes common descent (so there is a built in bias already)
No, it doesn't. Run an alignment program (BLAST, or pick another one) that aligns similar DNA. It doesn't care whether the similarity is from common descent or not.
and then at best it is only ESTIMATED
Count the number of transition differences and the number of transition differences. No estimation required.
alleged CORRECTIONS are made for multiple alleged substitutions
Use humans and chimpanzees. No corrections of any kind needed.
Plus in their COMPUTER SIMULATIONS (programmed by people already holding the belief) they needed to account and adjust for the Ti/Tv bias and in using both the pairwise correction method and the joint likelihood analysis (emphasis on correction and likelihood) they tended to overcorrect for the multiple alleged substitutions (which not all are by any means, but must be seen as such to make the data fit the theory instead of shape it) and failed ratio model in areas of low sequence divergence.
No simulations. Just count the differences and divide. Why are transitions much more common when comparing species than transversions? Simple question. You've tried to complicate it, but it's not complicated. Just tell me your explanation that doesn't involve common descent.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for "the divergence at CpG sites" are speaking about the highly methylated areas or the lower methylated areas?
Ignore methylation. Just calculate it for the whole genome. Why are differences between species much more common at CpG sites than at any other places in the genome? I think it's because the mutation rate is very high at CpG sites. What's your explanation?
Divergence is predominately based on homological assumptions and the misinterpretation of allegedly shared genes and mutations and "within-species diversity" IS shown to be the result of speciation which actually only produces variety of the same organism, and shows no evidence of transmutation of one organism into another entirely different organism (and I challenge you to show an actual example from nature or from lab experiments designed to prove this).
Word salad. Just run that alignment program again on chunks of DNA. Count the number of differences between humans and chimpanzees. Take the same chunk of human DNA and compare it to another human's chromosome. You'll find that where there are lots of differences between the species, there are also lots of differences between the two humans (relative to other places in the genome). Why is that the case? I think it's because the mutation rate is higher in those parts of the genome. What's your explanation?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,521
2,609
✟95,463.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Apparently if your assertions about yourself are true then you are an agnostic not an atheist (though atheists today like to jumble these together in our time, having been shown the total lack of rational support for their position). So the next step would be to get you to admit to yourself that the reality is more than merely materialistic.
I'm and agnostic atheist. Agnostic is a knowledge statement, and atheist is a belief statement. As an atheist, I lack any belief in deities, and as an agnostic, I don't know for sure if deities exist or not. My position is a matter of a lack of evidence for the existence of deities, not presence of evidence that they don't exist. Most atheists are agnostic, people just choose to call themselves agnostic when they want to avoid the stigma of the atheist label (or when they incorrectly think that being agnostic is a more mild position somehow). Furthermore, a person can be an agnostic theist as well.

DO you agree there may be other non-material aspects of reality (other simultaneous realms, other 'only experience-able' aspects, areas only discerned intuitively, the nature of the role one's limited ability to perceive plays, where others may not be so limited, and so on)?
Sure. Ghosts may walk through my body on a daily basis and, since they can't be detected, and I'd never know it. However, any experience that I would be capable of detecting should be measurable in some way, otherwise there's no means of distinguishing such an experience from a hallucination or a dream. Basically, such personal experiences might convince me that the subject in question exists, but it would be unreasonable to expect other people to take me for my word alone.

I'm sure that schizophrenic people experience plenty that I wouldn't be able to perceive. Funny thing, though, using brain scans, you can actually tell if people are experiencing something that you personally aren't. However, it helps me none since that doesn't demonstrate that what they are experiencing is or isn't the result of their own imagination or mental illness.

For example, it appears that all peoples in general (not every individual), of varying genders, ages, educations, and social status, throughout all time have recognized, or experienced (some even visually or audibly) the aspect of reality they may refer to as the "spiritual" realm.
Ever note the lack of consistency in their descriptions of it, and that it is culturally guided (these people don't see anything they haven't already heard of before)? Also, tons of frauds exist.

Now granted each culture over time has developed their own interpretation of what realization they perceived and developed their own cult of ritual regarding this realization. However, that it is (sometimes essential) and always has been part of what separates humans from beasts (not discounting the animal nature of our bodies).
Ha, there's no reason to assume that "spirituality" is human exclusive. Chimps and other apes do grieve, and some people think cats and dogs sense spirits better than humans can, etc.

Furthermore, there's no reason to assume that spirituality has always been a part of human culture. Not that it would lend it any legitimacy if it was. Plenty of fallacies and cognitive flaws have been long standing in our species, like perceiving this as a face https://am23.akamaized.net/tms/cnt/uploads/2011/02/faces_happycoffee.jpg

Some of these flaws are a consistent part of our brain chemistry and function to the point that even actively trying to prevent them is prone to fail. That in no way makes that coffee have a face, or legitimizes any of the other erroneous things we come up with.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... Yes speciation is really happening, BUT it cannot be used to demonstrate the change of one organism into an entirely different type of organism (as it is taught to be), BECAUSE all the evidence we have (which is much) only demonstrates the production of variety within the same organism...
Exactly as evolution requires. At no time does one organism (actually, species) change into an entirely different type of organism (species). Your repetition of this straw canard suggests that, for all your autodidactic achievement, you lack understanding of the fundamentals of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
Have you not been paying attention? The simplest alternative explanation example to share (and easiest to prove true or false) is the effect of speciation by natural selection and accumulated mutations. Yes speciation is really happening, BUT it cannot be used to demonstrate the change of one organism into an entirely different type of organism (as it is taught to be), BECAUSE all the evidence we have (which is much) only demonstrates the production of variety within the same organism.

As Speedwell points out,
that is not an explanation--only an assertion that variation and selection are inadequate to produce change beyond speciation.

pshun2404 said:
Please address this and by all means show some EXAMPLES not just the default to failed genetic arguments such as ERVs and so on. If it is a fact (as it is taught to be) then this should be easy! I can certainly give examples which support my scientifically based interpretation (now do not go there, just defend YOUR position).

Why should I not use the example of ERVs? It is an observed fact that humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 ERVs and that these ERVs occur at the same places in the human and chimpanzee genome, and this fact requires an explanation. If you have an explanation other than that of inheritance of these ERVs from a common ancestor, I shall, of course, consider it.

Another observed fact in support of common ancestry is the well-known nested hierarchy of biological classification. Such matters as the fact that Linnaeus classified us with the primates, that T.H. Huxley, in 1863, used anatomical criteria to argue that gorillas and chimpanzees are our closest relatives among the primates and that genetic evidence confirms this relationship, and the existence of homologous structures and organs, are also most naturally explained by descent from common ancestors.

Huxley's demonstration that the African apes are our closest relatives in also significant in view of the fact that the australopithecines, which were essentially small bipedal, ground-living apes with humanoid teeth, were restricted to Africa. Their transitional condition is again evidence for our common ancestry with the African apes. If australopithecines had been found only in south-east Asia, or if orangutans had been our closest relatives, that would have constituted a strong argument against common ancestry.

I could say a lot more, but these are enough examples for one post. I am not saying that this evidence is proof of evolution; I am asking you to present alternative, non-evolutionary, explanations for these observed facts.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"Yet, after 4 years of being a member of this site, people continue to disappoint me with how little evidence they have for their claims of there being deities"

I will explore this with you. Peyrhaps it might clarify a few things...but understand just as one cannot by the very limited scientific method prove there is no God neither can anyone by that method prove He/She/It/They exist....proof is only for math.


Most interesting that sarah mentioned evidence in her post, yet you focused on "proof" in your reply.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"Would you honestly claim I am biased in favor of a position that gives me a nightly existential crisis to which I cry myself to sleep nearly every night?"

I would not claim it, but I believe you do, because I have found that most atheists suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

Of course.

Yet, despite your tremendous amounts of study and working with scientists, you still wrote what is quoted in the thread opener:


"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."


I suspect that you cannot see the error, and that is why you wrote paragraph after paragraph hawking your wares and changing topics. Rather Trump-like.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The fact that organisms that appear similar anatomically and physiologically share similar genes in similar locations does not imply common descent just similarity.

I see. So then since dolphins resemble sharks we should expect their genes to be more similar, despite the act that one is a fish and one is a mammal?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Here's a hypothetical situation: What if scientists discovered very strong evidence that God existed, but in order to actually understand this evidence you would need many years of study and advanced physics degrees? Would creationists still be just as reluctant to embrace it because they didn't understand it? And would atheists try to dismiss it because they didn't understand it?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Here's a hypothetical situation: What if scientists discovered very strong evidence that God existed, but in order to actually understand this evidence you would need many years of study and advanced physics degrees? Would creationists still be just as reluctant to embrace it because they didn't understand it? And would atheists try to dismiss it because they didn't understand it?
I would think creationists would be extremely leery of it. It's not just God they want to exist, but their God, and the validation of their holy book. Think of the consternation if science proved God existed and it turned out to be Vishnu!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
And we never will observe such an event. Evolution does not work like Pokemon in case you forgot.

I choose you Rukwapithecus fleaglei!

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0