proving evolution as just a "theory"

[TLK Valentine]

Wow your avatar looks threatening. Please excuse my curiosity, why did you choose that imagery?

Because I thought that combining Mickey Mouse and Wolverine was utter genius.

The same artist did a great Ultron/Pinocchio mashup:

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Because I thought that combining Mickey Mouse and Wolverine was utter genius.

The same artist did a great Ultron/Pinocchio mashup:

Wow... when u put it that way, i cannot disagree with its creativity. That ult/pin mash up looks 'metal'

 

[xianghua]

Yeah, you bring that one up a lot. Unfortunately, it's not as helpful to your case as you seem to think. It's true that once the flagellum is pared down to its essential 40-odd proteins it can't be broken down any further and still function as a flagellum. But what I've been trying to explain is that those proteins could have served other purposes before the structure evolved. And in fact, that's exactly what we see:

are you sure?

1) first: those proteins arent identical but similar. so you cant say that they has other functions since they arent the same proteins.

2) many of those proteins are from several kinds of bacteria. so you cant just mix them in a bacteria to form a flagellum.

3) even if we ignore all of this, what is the chance for mixing about 30 different parts in about 10^7 bases genome to get a minimal flagellum?

4) we just moved the problem to another systems.

5) do you think that its possible at the anatomical level too? (for instance hearing system).

do you see now why this is a real problem for evolution?

 

[Ophiolite]

Since kind doesn't have a clear definition, even if they did transition on the level of genus, you could easily move the goal posts. I am never impressed when people use that term for this reason.

It's not easy to be kind about kinds, but then we kind of knew that.

 

[xianghua]

In light of complex life being on this planet for almost a billion years, yes, 20my isn't much.
Now if you'ld find something that poses problems in the hundreds of million years range... then you'ld have something.
In such sciences there is going to be a margin of error, due to insufficient data.
This is not a problem and expected.

great. if so even a 70my human fossil will not be a problem for evolution.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

All good. Our conversation is expanding into some interesting territory

I dont insist anything my dear . Please type faith and meaning into google. Look for noun 1.

This is why i chose faith noun 1. The atheists i have encountered fervently say they have no religious faith. Hence why i use noun 1 ie 'complete trust in something'

Well, I can say I don't really have 'complete trust in something' either, so perhaps I don't even have that kind of faith. If you mean to use it as "faith (noun 1) in God", then you're being at least a little disingenuous.

Would you accept something if you had no trust in it?

Generally, No.

If i have no trust in a belief, why would i accept it?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't...

How would a lack of trust effect my belief system?

I don't know - are you asking me what you're supposed to think, or are you asking me what I would think?

I got taught Christianity this is true but i had 100% faith (noun 1) and was rewarded. A went out of my way to solemnly seek God.

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13 | NIV

You, God, are my God,
earnestly I seek you;
I thirst for you,
my whole being longs for you,
in a dry and parched land
where there is no water.
Psalm 63:1 | NIV

Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
Isaiah 55:6 | NIV

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

This is literally every religious system of Faith. Have you seen the Miracle Claims of the Hindus? They are so well known that they even have names for them. They've invested quite some time and effort into researching the 8 types of miracles, repleat with several documented examples of each type for good measure. Obviously I'm giving you this as an example, but what would you say to a Hindu who has been brought up in this faith, knowing of the miracles they have documented and experienced by their followers, saints and gods? - See: Hindu List of Miracles for a breakdown and examples. Remember, the Hindu religion has originals of their holy texts that predate the oldest of the biblical writings by 500 to 1500 years.

My question for you, Why wouldn't I subscribe to their religion first? Have you read the Vedas? They're a great read...

Many come to Christ for many reasons. Some see miracles, some have visions, some are taught, some learn by mistakes, some convert, some read the bible and hear their sheppard, some see creation and start a journey, some know for some reason it is right, etc.

We all come to an invisible God. We all have faith that He is real. Start a relationship with God and within one sec/min/day/month/year, bam, the proof. This only works for the ppl who have 100% faith - this relates to trust and a belief.

As do the Hindus as evidenced by their testimonials. Even if we stick to the God of the Bible though, the Jews were never convinced that Jesus was the messiah, they're still not to this day. Then you have Islam, which claims to be a more recent revelation than Christianity, and as mentioned, they even have the original texts for their religion, and they know who wrote them. All of them claim the same relationship with their God(s) and enjoy the exact same proof.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is why have you picked Christianity over any other faith, if you were born either in India as a Hindu or the middle east as either a Jew or Muslim, would you be professing the truth of those to me now, instead?

When I see the miracle and truth claims of all these religions, your claims for Christianity aren't any more convincing than any of these other religions. Why is yours different?

Even one spec of doubt will not work. It has to be from the heart and with meaning.

This is an issue. I can't choose to believe something, I can't help what I believe - if I were to say "I believe in God", I'd be lying to myself. especially given there's equal claims with equal amount of support for them for all kinds of religions I've mentioned above.

"You accepted the position that Christianity is true before you looked at the evidence."

Evidence -the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What available body of facts or info do i need to consider before i put my faith in God?

Perhaps the evidence for all other religions, but to be honest in your appraisal, you'd need to look at your own religion with exactly the same analytical mind you look at all the other religions. I'm not sure you can do that though.

I don't have the same problem since I was never indoctrinated into any religion in the first place, so I can honestly say I can and do look at all religions with the same critical thought process. I feel this is where we will forever differ.

 

[USincognito]

great. if so even a 70my human fossil will not be a problem for evolution.

Given that primates, much less hominids hadn't evolved 70 million years ago it would be a major problem. Do actually have any idea how evolution works?

 

[xianghua]

Of course it does. It is the backbone of our understanding of biology

how exactly? can you give an example please?

 

[DogmaHunter]

great. if so even a 70my human fossil will not be a problem for evolution.

If you are just going to ignore what I say, then don't bother replying.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to wrap your head around the concept of having a margin of error when trying to unravel a timeline of events based on an extremely limited dataset, which becomes more accurate over time as new data comes in.

But as always, off course, your total lack of understanding and (wilfull) ignorance on the topic, is not an argument against it.

 

[pitabread]

Do actually have any idea how evolution works?

Something to do with robots and motors?

 

[DogmaHunter]

how exactly? can you give an example please?

Only evolution explains the nested hierarchies we see in both genetics as well as comparative anatomy.

Without a simple process like evolution, nothing in biology makes any sense. Especially not the nested hierarchies (of both active as well as "broken" dna).

Evolution explains why you need a new flu shot every year.
Evolution explains why we find kangaroo's only in australia.
Evolution explains why we share so many ERV's with chimps, a bit less with gorilla's and less still with oerang oetangs and even less with lions, yet still more then with parrots.
Evolution explains why only birds have feathers, why only mammals have hair,...

In light of evolution, biology, anatomy, geographic distribution, genetics,... actually makes sense.

 

[xianghua]

If you are just going to ignore what I say, then don't bother replying.

you said that:

"In light of complex life being on this planet for almost a billion years, yes, 20my isn't much.
Now if you'ld find something that poses problems in the hundreds of million years range... then you'ld have something."

so if we will push back human by say 50 my it will not be a problem for evolution according to this criteria, since its only about 50 and not "hundreds of million years range" as you said. so a 50my human fossil will not pose any problem for evolution according to this.

 

[xianghua]

Only evolution explains the nested hierarchies we see in both genetics as well as comparative anatomy.

since there isnt realy "nested hierarchy" in nature, evolution doesnt explain it. so if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non-hierarchy should be evidence against it. and this is indeed what we found:

(image from this paper http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only)

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them (phylogenetically speaking). so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.

Without a simple process like evolution, nothing in biology makes any sense. Especially not the nested hierarchies (of both active as well as "broken" dna).

look above. there are many examples of non hierarchy too.

again, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

since there isnt realy "nested hierarchy" in nature, evolution doesnt explain it. so if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non-hierarchy should be evidence against it. and this is indeed what we found:

View attachment 210835
(image from this paper http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only)

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them (phylogenetically speaking). so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.

look above. there are many examples of non hierarchy too.

again, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

Also, Gunea Pigs have a broken GULO gene and can't produce their own vitamin C, just like us Great Apes, yet everything else in the tree of life between us and them can... So, the Theory of Evolution would dictate that these two broken GULO genes would have to be broken in different ways (i.e. not in the same way or for the same reason) otherwise the Theory would be falsified....

What do we find when we were finally able to make the comparison?

They're Broken in a different way to how the Great Apes GULO Gene is broken! Theory of Evolution passes yet ANOTHER of a continuous array of tests vindicating the Theory! - A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 3 provides a great breakdown of this, complete with the actual gene for comparison.

Now, Just as the eye, flight, sonar, locomotion and any number of things has developed a number of times independently, I'll go out on a limb here and declare that the neural presence developed independently in the two lineages. I haven't even looked at the evidence yet, but from what I know of the Theory of Evolution, this is what you'll find.

 

[xianghua]

Also, Gunea Pigs have a broken GULO gene and can't produce their own vitamin C, just like us Great Apes, yet everything else in the tree of life between us and them can... So, the Theory of Evolution would dictate that these two broken GULO genes would have to be broken in different ways (i.e. not in the same way or for the same reason) otherwise the Theory would be falsified....

What do we find when we were finally able to make the comparison?

They're Broken in a different way to how the Great Apes GULO Gene is broken! Theory of Evolution passes yet ANOTHER of a continuous array of tests vindicating the Theory! - A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 3 provides a great breakdown of this, complete with the actual gene for comparison.

Now, Just as the eye, flight, sonar, locomotion and any number of things has developed a number of times independently, I'll go out on a limb here and declare that the neural presence developed independently in the two lineages. I haven't even looked at the evidence yet, but from what I know of the Theory of Evolution, this is what you'll find.

i can discuss about the gulo case too. but first i already falsified the claim about hiearchy as evidence for evolution. each claim separately please.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

since there isnt realy "nested hierarchy" in nature, evolution doesnt explain it. so if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non-hierarchy should be evidence against it. and this is indeed what we found:

View attachment 210835
(image from this paper http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only)

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them (phylogenetically speaking). so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.



look above. there are many examples of non hierarchy too.

again, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

Also, Gunea Pigs have a broken GULO gene and can't produce their own vitamin C, just like us Great Apes, yet everything else in the tree of life between us and them can... So, the Theory of Evolution would dictate that these two broken GULO genes would have to be broken in different ways (i.e. not in the same way or for the same reason) otherwise the Theory would be falsified....

What do we find when we were finally able to make the comparison?

They're Broken in a different way to how the Great Apes GULO Gene is broken! Theory of Evolution passes yet ANOTHER of a continuous array of tests vindicating the Theory! - A Tale of Three Creationists, Part 3 provides a great breakdown of this, complete with the actual gene for comparison.

Now, Just as the eye, flight, sonar, locomotion and any number of things has developed a number of times independently, I'll go out on a limb here and declare that the neural presence developed independently in the two lineages. I haven't even looked at the evidence yet, but from what I know of the Theory of Evolution, this is what you'll find.

..... LOOOOL!

What do you know?? - From your own link at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685/20150041.figures-only - we have THIS image... http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/371/1685/20150041/F1.medium.gif ... which has this text in tow:

"Relationships among five basal metazoan clades with choanoflagellates sister to all animals. Three ctenophore species are shown on the left. The sea gooseberry, Pleurobrachia bachei and the sea walnut, Mnemiopsis leidyi are two ctenophores with their genome recently sequenced. The most recent phylogenomics and comparative analyses suggest convergent evolution of neurons, synapses, muscles and mesoderm in Metazoa. Here, we also stress three major points: (i) neuron is a functional, but not a genetic category; (ii) any given neural system is not a single character, it includes different cell lineages with different genealogies and origins; and (iii) there are no pan-neuronal/pan-synaptic genes."​

It then goes on to refer to the diagram you included with the following text explaining it:

"Two alternative scenarios of neuronal evolution (modified from Moroz et al. [14]). The polygenesis or multiple origins of neurons as the example of convergent evolution (left). The single-origin hypotheses implies multiple loss of neural systems in sponges and placozoans as well as massive loss of many molecular components involved in neurogenesis and synaptic functions of the Urmetazoan in ctenophores (right). The single-origin hypothesis still implies independent recruitment of other molecular components involved in neural and synaptic functions—the situation which still suggests the extensive parallel evolution of neural organization in ctenophores. Here, ctenophores are placed as sister to other animals. However, even the classical view of the animal phylogeny (sponges are sisters to other animals, see fig. 2 in [14]) still implies the parallel evolution of neurons and neural signalling in the animal kingdom."​

Which is EXACTLY a Nested Hierarchy! Then Figure 4 at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/371/1685/20150041/F4.medium.gif and Figure 5 at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/371/1685/20150041/F5.medium.gif have the following explanations:

"Convergent evolution of gap junction proteins. Connexins are a chordate-specific family of genes encoding gap junction proteins; they share no identity to the pannexin/innexin (PANX/INX) family. However, both families have the same membrane topology and perform the same function as electrical synapses and membrane pores. The table shows the complement of connexins and pannexin genes in different metazoans with sequenced genomes. The right part illustrates examples of the organization of representative genes. Pleurobrachia PANX/INX genes have the largest number of exons compared with all other metazoans."

"Key molecular innovations underlying evolution of neural organization in ctenophores and the cnidarian/bilaterian clade (modified from Moroz et al. [28]). Bars indicate the presence or relative expansions of selected gene families in all basal metazoan lineages from the inferred urmetazoan ancestor. The data suggest that sponges and placozoans never developed neural systems, or, highly unlikely assuming the presence of neuronal organization in the urmetazoan ancestor, sponges and placozoans lost their nervous systems. Either hypothesis points towards extensive parallel evolution of neural systems in ctenophores versus the Bilateria + Cnidaria clade."
​

and THERE IT IS! Both I, and the Theory of Evolution are vindicated once again! I KNEW I didn't even have to look to predict what happened there... I have a feeling though that you're already across this, but are deliberately misrepresenting the impact. Sad, really....

Thank you, thank you very much, you're a great audience, I love you all....!

 

[TLK Valentine]

great. if so even a 70my human fossil will not be a problem for evolution.

It will present a question that needs to be answered.

Fortunately, answering questions is pretty much a scientist's wheelhouse.

 

[Speedwell]

again, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

Logincally, no. If nested hierarchy is evdence for evolution, lack of it is merely lack of evidence for it--not evidence against it.

 

[Audacious]

No, what it proves is they are simply unaware of the non black ancestor in their lineage.....

As I said: everyone has no-white ancestors. You, me, everyone. This is simply a fact.

Just as I am sure I am unaware of the many different ancestors in my lineage.......

I am 99.99% western European, and the 0.01% left was DNA they couldn't read. Genetics tests are really interesting!

Please give an exact definition of “species”.

"...a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens."

 

[Skreeper]

Something to do with robots and motors?

Please don't forget to include self-replicating cars and airplanes. Everybody knows they are an integral part of evolution!