proving evolution as just a "theory"

xianghua said:

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."

Click to expand...

I also said:

"In such sciences there is going to be a margin of error, due to insufficient data.
This is not a problem and expected."

Seems you missed (*ehum* ignored *ehum*) that part.

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.

Click to expand...

Nope.

The length of this thread is impressive.

xianghua said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, you failed at that pretty spectacularly then, didn't you?

xianghua said:

since there isnt realy "nested hierarchy" in nature

Click to expand...

Except that there is.
Seems like you are completely oblivious to that fact. You seem unaware about the ridiculous detail to which we have unraveled this hierarchy in all living things.

Here's a nice graph that wasn't even plotted by humans, but by a blind and unbiased computer algoritm that merely grabs DNA sequences and plots them out based on matches:


For full view: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

And just to give you an idea about just how detailed this gets... here's a small section of a very large scale graph, showing the small portion we humans fit in:





Here's one just showing horses:




You really have no idea.

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.

Click to expand...

That doesn't violate nested hierarchies.
Also, you might want to ask yourself why you are citing sources to make a point, while the articles you're pointing are making the exact opposite point.......................

Speedwell said:

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

Click to expand...

You're going to confuse him with such high quality logic!

AV1611VET said:

The length of this thread is impressive.

Click to expand...

You're jealous, aren't you?

AV1611VET said:

The length of this thread is impressive.

Click to expand...

Othello 3.3.165-167, my friend...

DogmaHunter said:

You're jealous, aren't you?

Click to expand...

Bugeyedcreepy said:

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....!

Click to expand...

so if evolution is true then we should not find example of homologous genes between two far groups (but not in some species between those groups)as above? this is your prediction?

Justatruthseeker said:

I always have an answer to evolutionary PR because evolution is easily shown to be false.

Click to expand...

Odd, then, that you have failed to show evolution to be false.

Guess it is not so easy.

Neither was your response about Huskies and Mastiffs not being natural any answer, especially while accepting unnatural laboratory alterations and claiming they support you natural belief.... it’s actual hypocritical and downright dishonest......

Click to expand...

I have not commented on the Huskies issue, you seem to be easily confused.

Haven’t a clue, but the Chinese do have a written history that says Noah himself was their originator.

The difference is that unlike evolutionists I don’t make up common ancestors that don’t exist or hypothetical intermediaries and claim fact. I just say I don’t know, but all myths have a grain of truth, it’s how they became myths. So perhaps ask the Chinese?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf

Click to expand...

That was hilarious.


Sure, there was a great flood (funny that ALL civilizations that arise next to water have flood myths...) - but no mention of God... Or any of the other bible people or stories - and no mention of China in the bible.
And you want to accuse others of inventing stories?

Again - hilarious.

And so cool that you goggled this and found a creationist tall tale to support you.

Some believe otherwise.

Out of which of Noah’s three sons did the Chinese race come from?

Click to expand...

Even more hilarious - 100% speculation presented as an alternative "explanation" to another hilarious bit of nonsense.

"Descendants of Ham included the Egyptians and Sumerians, who founded the first two great empires of antiquity, as well as other great nations such as the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Canaanites. The modern African tribes and the Mongol tribes (including today the Chinese and Japanese), as well as the American Indians and the South Sea Islanders, are probably dominantly Hamitic in origin."

Pure, unadulterated, 100% unsupported assertion - no evidence at all!

Again, you accuse US of making things up?

What else did Henry Morris, PhD, Christian minister and creationist, say about the 'Hamites'?

Oh yes -


"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites..."

Henry Morris, "The beginning of the World", 1991.

Looks like ol' Henry was a bit of a white supremacist...

Which common ancestor became both chimp and human?

Ahh, you don’t know, but that’s ok when it comes to your beliefs, right, just not mine?

Click to expand...

Your beliefs, as seen in what you provide as evidence, have no support.

YOU claim a concrete, discreet group of real individual ancestors for all humanity - Adam and eve, then a major population bottleneck of 4 inbreeding pairs (the flood), followed by a re-population and re-diversification of all of humanity in ~4500 years, and the best you can muster is some laughable assertions and wild extrapolations.

We don't NEED a specific common ancestor to draw rigorous genetic, biogeographic, and fossil-based conclusions.

We don't need to google every time we come across a word or concept that we should know having 'debated' these issues for years.

We don't need to put 100% unquestioning, unyielding faith in the claims that we do not understand put out by a collection of websites and gurus in order to 'argue' for our cause.

So please do not project your own shortcomings onto others. it is unbecoming.

And by the way - you did not even try to address my questions -

So which of Noah's sons or daughters-in-law was Asian?

How did this Asian meet up with a middle eastern man/woman in these ancient times?

How did the Asian "allies" get repressed, then somehow later down the line, post-flood, when Asia was finally habitable again, did people from Ararat migrate there, mate, and have just their 'Asia' "allies" recombine to produce Asians from a middle eastern/Asian amalgam, since after all you claim with such confidence that 'And will never change an Asian into any other race..'


Evidence for this magical genetic assertion.

USincognito said:

RJS, I think you're simply in over your head on this topic, but I'm going to keep on trying.


More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.


More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.


And his exactly why I think you're in over your head. When given a specific set of examples of how "common design" is untenable you parrot your mantra again and then begin bloviating and talking in circles rather than actually addressing any, much less all of the examples I provided.

For instance the part in purple. You clearly didn't even understand my list because three of them:
- GULO pseudogene
- Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 pathway
- VTG pseudogenes
don't work at all. You haven't explained why the designer would put something that didn't work in the genomes of not just one species but dozens and hundreds.

Click to expand...

But wouldn't it just be so awesome if all we had to do to 'prove' evolution is write, regardless of the situation, over and over, "There is no evidence for creation" ; "creationism has been disproven so many times"; "you just deny evolution because you want to live like a bad person"; etc....

DogmaHunter said:

I also said:

"In such sciences there is going to be a margin of error, due to insufficient data.
This is not a problem and expected."

Seems you missed (*ehum* ignored *ehum*) that part.




Nope.

Click to expand...

so if we will find a human fossil alongside a t-rex one it will not make any problem for evolution, since there is a margin of error.

xianghua said:

thanks. so if we will find a human fossil alongside a t-rex one it will not make any problem for evolution.

Click to expand...

DogmaHunter said:

Except that there is.
Seems like you are completely oblivious to that fact. You seem unaware about the ridiculous detail to which we have unraveled this hierarchy in all living things.

Here's a nice graph that wasn't even plotted by humans, but by a blind and unbiased computer algoritm that merely grabs DNA sequences and plots them out based on matches:

View attachment 210853
For full view: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

And just to give you an idea about just how detailed this gets... here's a small section of a very large scale graph, showing the small portion we humans fit in:

View attachment 210854



Here's one just showing horses:

View attachment 210855


You really have no idea.



Also, you might want to ask yourself why you are citing sources to make a point, while the articles you're pointing are making the exact opposite point.......................

Click to expand...

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

(image from Vehicles)

DogmaHunter said:

That doesn't violate nested hierarchies.

Click to expand...

yes its is. since we can find shared traits in far groups, but not in some groups between them. so its non-hierarchy.

Justatruthseeker said:

Common design doesn’t lack a mechanism. It’s called male and female and hereditary trees.

Click to expand...

What is a hereditary tree? How is a tree a mechanism? A phylogenetic tree is just a graphic representation of deduced or inferred relationships between taxa. it is not a "mechanism" any more than a movie is a "mechanism".

Can you produce one for us?

You just believe one becomes many, I believe two becomes many. You believe one thing can become many things. I believe two things can become many different variations within that Kind.

Click to expand...

We believe the things we do because we understand population genetics. You believe the things you do because you don't.

Sorry.

As Asian remains Asian and African remaining African ...and making an Afro-Asian when mating has shown you....
I believe nine months is all it takes, as empirical data shows. The only question is how long it takes for those two to come together.

Click to expand...

You keep making your arguments backwards, and thus they fail.

You want to believe - solely because the bible says so - that ALL extant human diversity arose from 4 inbreeding pairs of middle eastern people starting some 4500 years ago.

From this middle eastern mating-fest, you want to claim we get Asians and Africans and the Nordic groups and the Inuit and the Aborigine and the Bantu and so on, and to "support" this you want to fall back on 'when an Asian and an African mate you get an Afro-asian'.


That is the OPPOSITE of the problem your biblical "genetics" faces!

And you don't even get THAT????

xianghua said:

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

Click to expand...

No, it is evidence of your desperation and refusal to accept facts.

PsychoSarah said:

We shall see, the experiment hasn't started yet. Though, saying I evolved them is a poor choice of wording. More like I am setting up conditions so that the experimental population of Triops will evolve much faster than the control group.

Click to expand...

We'll go ahead and do that then. What I am more interested in is if you are able to show the crustaceans evolve into something that's not a crustacean. That would be something.

rjs330 said:

We'll go ahead and do that then. What I am more interested in is if you are able to show the crustaceans evolve into something that's not a crustacean. That would be something.

Click to expand...

no one can do that since such evolution will take million of years. so basically it cant be prove or demonstrate.

xianghua said:

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

Click to expand...

Well, here's a challenge for you then:

Take a group of random vehicles, create a list of various characteristics for each, then perform independent phylogenetic analyses on said characteristics to see what sort of convergence or other patterns you get.

Are you up for the challenge?

pitabread said:

Answering a question with a question is poor discussion form. rjs330 keeps asserting that certain things are evidence for 'common design', I'm asking him to explain why. So far he is failing to do so.

If you want to have a crack at it, then by all means go for it. But I'm not going to hold my breath for explanation....

Click to expand...

This is only in your mind. I have expressed it and so has truth seeker. It's just that you are refusing to see it. Common design is obvious. All living things have much of the same things that make up their being. From the construction of cells, genes, the abilities to adapt. The creatures of the sea have common traits and design to exist in the sea. Land creatures all have commonalities that allow them to exist on land. It's not that difficult really.